HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1998, 4 - USE PERMIT A 46-98: APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO AMEND A CONDITION OF AN APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, REGARDING A PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONTAINING A DETACHED BEDROOM, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF CARM council
j acenba uEpoat
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �J
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner f'P,. /
SUBJECT: Use Permit A 46-98: Appeals of the Planning Commission's action to amend a
condition of an approved administrative use permit, regarding a proposed structure containing a
detached bedroom, for property located on the southwest side of Carmel Street, between Buchon
and Islay Streets (1535 Carmel Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeals, and upholding the Planning Commission's
action to approve the administrative use permit, based on findings, and with conditions,
including an amended Condition No. 3 as modified by the Commission.
DISCUSSION
Situation
A small one-bedroom house, detached garage and a 280 square-foot building that was
historically used as a detached bedroom, currently exist on the site. William Tickell, the
applicant, and also one of the appellants, wants to add onto the front house and rebuild the rear
building. On March 17, 1998, he applied for an administrative use permit to pursue the proposed
project. The use permit was necessary for three different reasons:
• to allow further development of a non-conforming lot(the R-2 site is only 3,600 square feet);
• to allow an addition to a non-conforming building - the front house is non-conforming in
terms of current street and side yard setback requirements; and
• to allow a setback reduction for the proposed addition to the front house - the building height
closest to the property line will be 19 feet (a 19' building height requires a 8-foot side yard; a
4-foot side yard exists).
Administrative Use Permit Review
On May 1, 1998, the Hearing Officer approved the use permit, based on findings, and with six
conditions. On May 1, 1998, an appeal of the decision was filed by the applicant on the basis of
a contention with Condition No. 3. Specifically, the appellant disagreed with the requirement to
eliminate the loft space from the rear building (detached bedroom).
Plannine Commission's Action
Commission discussion focused on the function of the detached bedroom and how its size may
y-/
Council Agenda Rep -Tickell/Martin Appeal (A 46-98)
Page 2
affect its use as a separate dwelling unit. Some Commissioners felt that, without having strict
standards on the size of a detached bedroom, the City should not dictate design. Other
Commissioners expressed fears that the unit would be ultimately used as a separate dwelling and
had concerns with density, tandem parking and the impacts of the proposed structure on the very
small site.
The Commission had a difficult time coming up with a motion that was acceptable to the
majority. An initial vote to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's decision failed on a
3-3 vote. Two other motions to uphold the appeal by modifying Condition No. 3 both failed on
similarly deadlocked votes. A fourth motion to uphold the appeal by modifying Condition No. 3
to restrict the total gross floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet was approved on a
5-1-1 vote (Commr. Ready voting no; Commr. Jeffrey absent).
Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel Street, a neighbor for the past 6 years, noted problems with the way
that the site had been rented to large groups of people in the past and indicated concerns that the
site would be similarly used in the future. She felt that it was not necessary to have such a large
and elaborate floor plan for a detached bedroom. She commented that the front house could
easily be used as a 2-bedroom house and that the garage may be planned for residential use also.
She noted concerns with the height of the structure and potential impacts to her sunlight.
Appeals Filed
On June 2, 1998, Kim Martin filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Her appeal
notes that the existing detached structure behind the main house has not been used as a bedroom
for two years. She also questions the scale and height of the new structure and the need to
include a sleeping loft in what is considered a detached bedroom. She specifically requests that
the initially approved Condition No. 3 approved by the Hearing Officer to eliminate the loft
portion of the detached bedroom be reinstated.
On June 5, 1998, William Tickell, applicant and appellant, also filed an appeal of the
Commission's decision because of the restriction imposed by the Commission through the
amended Condition No. 3 to limit the gross floor area of the detached bedroom to a maximum of
400 square feet. His appeal was in protest to having to reduce the size of the proposed detached
bedroom. He wants the original footprint for the detached bedroom to be allowed (the gross
floor area depicted on plans is about 538 square feet). He emphasizes that the condition will
result in about a 25%reduction of the total floor area of the detached bedroom.
Staff Analysis/Conclusion
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's original consideration of Mr. Tickell's
appeal of the use permit is attached to this report as a reference. Since his use permit was
approved to allow him to proceed with his proposed project, the appeal has been focused on a
component of the project approval, rather than the total action itself. The contested part of the
Council Agenda Report-Ti ./Martin Appeal(A 46-98)
Page 3 -
original approval was specifically with Condition No. 3 which required that a proposed loft area
be removed from the new detached bedroom building behind the main house.
The condition was originally proposed to address concerns that the scale and layout of this
building was not consistent with its intended use as a detached bedroom. Staff earlier determined
that initially submitted plans showing the back building as a separate dwelling unit would not be
consistent with allowed density. Plans were changed by the applicant to show the rear building
as a detached bedroom with a 5-foot side yard setback.
In staff's opinion, some restriction on the scale of the new detached building is both appropriate
and advisable, given the very small size of the lot (3,600 square feet), and the intended use of the
structure (detached bedroom to main house). Staff feels that the Commission's revision to
Condition No. 3 to limit the building's gross floor area to a maximum of 400 square feet was a
valid attempt to allow the applicant some flexibility with its design, but also address the concerns
of neighbors and staff with the scale and the potential use of the building as a separate dwelling
unit. An alternative to the square footage limitation, that also attempts to address those same
concerns with scale and use, would be to reinstate Condition No. 3 as originally approved by the
Hearing Officer requiring the elimination of the loft(consistent with appeal by Kim Martin).
Staff feels that it has been reasonable in working out a solution with the applicant to allow him to
make improvements to the site. However, staff feels strongly that an over 500 square-foot
building containing sitting, dressing, sleeping and laundry facilities is of a scale that goes beyond
the intent of a detached bedroom (as a comparison, a studio apartment must be 450 square feet or
less). As Ms. Martin stated at the administrative hearing, the detached bedroom should be
designed for its intended purpose as a sleeping room that is ancillary to the main house, rather
than recreating common areas and other household functions of the main house in the bedroom.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve Mr. Tickell's appeal, thereby approving the use permit with
conditions, including an amended Condition No. 3 with no specific restrictions regarding a
loft or a maximum floor area for the detached bedroom, based on the findings included in
Draft Resolution B. This Resolution also includes denying the appeal of Ms. Martin.
2. The Council may approve Ms. Martin's appeal, thereby approving the use permit with
conditions, including an amended Condition No. 3 with a requirement that the loft be
eliminated from the detached bedroom, based on the findings included in Draft Resolution C
(Hearing Officer's approval). This Resolution also includes denying the appeal of Mr.
Tickell.
Council Agenda Rel. -Tickell/Martin Appeal (A 46-98)
Page 4
3. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given
to staff and the appellants.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A(deny appeal - Planning Commission's action)
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B (uphold Mr. Tickell's appeal)
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution B (uphold Ms. Martin's appeal)
Attachment 4: Appeals to City Council
Attachment 5: Planning Commission follow-up letter&Resolution No. 5224-98
Attachment 6: Draft 5-27-98 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 7: 5-27-98 Planning Commission staff report
Enclosed:
Project Plans
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION BY.THE APPLICANT, WILLIAM.TICKELL,AND A.NEIGHBOR,
EI M MARTIN,THEREBY APPROVING THE IJSE:PERAflT
WITH APPROVED CONDITIONS:FOR;A PROPOSED.:PROJECT
LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998,
and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the
administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow further
development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced
side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area
of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street,
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998, because she felt that the
proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was
both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and
WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of
the proposed detached bedroom; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the
records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14
of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming
structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The.existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in
character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site.are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming
parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing
Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking
contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive
use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to
maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a
result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the
adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to
protect fire safety, and the purpose.of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar
access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods.
SECTION 2. Appeal denial. The appeals of the Planning Commission's action by the
applicant, William Tickell, and a neighbor,Kim Martin,are denied, and therefore the use permit
is approved, subject to the following conditions approved by the Planning Commission:
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required
parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or
concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. The rear .building containing the .proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with
setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's
zoning regulations. The gross floor area shall not exceed 400 square feet.
4. The applicant.shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director acknowledging-that development at the site may be
used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom.(total
of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-
Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement.to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to
the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall
include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or
engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 4
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 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
T��
Draft 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'S
ACTION BY THE APPLICANT, WILLIAM TICKELL,THEREBY APPROVING
THE USE PERMIT WITH A MODIFIED CONDITION NO.3 ELIMINATING
SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR A-PROPOSED DETACHED BEROOM
LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USEPERMIT A 46-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998,
and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the
administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow further
development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced
side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area
of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street,
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998 because she felt that the
proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was
both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and
WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of
the proposed detached bedroom; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the
records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
��l
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. .Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14
of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming
structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3• The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in
characterwith the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming
parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is.exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing.
Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking
contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive
use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to
maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a
result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the
adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to
protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar
access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods.
SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The appeal of the applicant, Bill Tickell, of the Planning
Commission's action is upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the
following conditions, including a modified Condition No. 3 which eliminates any restrictions on
floor area for the proposed detached bedroom:
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required
parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or
.concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director.
. 3. The rear building containing the proposed .detached bedroom shall fully comply with..
setback'standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's
zoning regulations.
4. . The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be
used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total
of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-
Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to
the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall
include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or
engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The appeal of the neighbor, Kim Martin, of the Planning
Commission's action is denied.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 4
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 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon,Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
Draft Resolution C
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION BY THE APPELLANT,KIM MARTIN,THEREBY APPROVING
THE USE PERMIT WITH A MODIFIED.CONDITION NO.3 ELIMINATING
THE PROPOSED LOFT IN A PROPOSED DETACHED BEROOM
LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998,
and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the
administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow further
development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced
side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area
of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street,
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998 because she felt that the
proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was
both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and
WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of
the proposed detached bedroom; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the
records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff:
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14
of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming
structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom 'is in
character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The:proposed.changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming
parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing
Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking
contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive
use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to
maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a
result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the
adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to
protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar
access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in-neighborhoods.
SECTION 2. Appeal approval. Kim Martin's appeal of the Planning Commission's
action is upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions,
including a modified Condition No. 3 which eliminates the loft level in the proposed detached
bedroom:
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required
parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or
concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with
setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's
zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the
detached bedroom.
4. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be
used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total
of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-
Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to
the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall
include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or
engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
7.
SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The appeal of the applicant, William Tickell, of the
Planning Commission's action is denied.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 4
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 . 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon,Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
i►iii�►►►►�►i►►I11IIIIRII11 pin► ► II
11 II
� city of Sm luis 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
rendered on
which consisted o thefollowing (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) 413=5
$vr3JC=G-7 TO l�iU/J/T/4rrJES'. ?� �t�/C.Oife� A-S P�oR�s�� W1I S
CfjC.C('GLa7[� AT -�� fi(.v� rcmcc�x�4To�v�. Go"VI7io� ;3
//�
co�t/�Ji7�oh1 A Lf�P�.21 ( DN 7 E 40ACAA2�Z 7-
In
/Y1 4A opi e,' 7,A-W- / 7 75 4 is
74i z.s�fWU
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
1 (' r t 1 a'J�`C J1 /!�. wn.N�..\W Cf. On _C
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: p 11LZ-1 bYl ,, .444 7 =CLL -327, S C fV
Name/Title MailingddressZi
p ode
Cil
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: .
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for7-1 9& Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED
JUN 0 5 1998
SLO C ? CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office
�►i►►�IIIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIII��I @I�IIIIIII
City Of San
WIS 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
� y �— rendered on T��j
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
�JTfu�\L'Z.tr� 't�C3? gS V(;�)�.0 � � y�V� �(•+�/t•. I' `l ll•4� . /
�^ ..t, fYAC• -..t . +
c.l`.i Q r� C��= 1!�,4e� t�fl t%1^(• l� l!I�i /_ � it t
'tP�,�
J 1 Kc
` _�L 1{ Ire .�'�� "(�.7'Q.{�Gr� VI �jY(;%ly✓° 1. `/? +-+1�..�i l --(�744
4v
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: ';ry, / r-/
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
��11'.,711 --
1' E 7F1 -
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
mor Official Use Only.
Calendared for T T- 98 Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer RECEIVED
Copy to the following department(s):
vis JUN 01 1998
_� SLO CITY CL RK
Original in City Clerk's Office
T—/ O
Ab G' `��CW Qom, 456kbn ('alz.
6 - 1 - 98
L
To Whom It May Concern,
My brother and'I lived at 1535 '/z Carmel street from 1993 — 1994 and
became concerned about the houses safety problems prior to moving out. I
stayed in the back shed unit/room which was more like a large closet with
no amenities. We tried several times to have landlord William Tickle fix
obvious safety problems. After several complaints and no repairs we moved
out. On one occasion the gas main broke and the fire department responded
and shut off the main. One of the fireman 'said the house was definitely in
violation and was unsafe because of: old wom wiring, no G.F.I. `s in the
bathroom or kitchen, unsafe overgrown brush, and no fire alarms. Aside
from all of the risky safety problems, the whole house was falling apart and
no repairs were ever made.
Cordially,
i jo
Jeremy Fissell
RECEIVED
si0vE,IP(LO,48►'—� JUN 03 1998
/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
►�����►�����iia�►ii►IIIIIIIIIIIIIh°11"��►� II
II
city of SAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
June 3, 1998
William Earl Tickell
3233 Davis Canyon Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: Administrative Use Permit 46-98: 1535 Cannel Street
Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that a
loft be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom.
Dear Mr. Tickell:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 27, 1998 denied the appeal, upholding the
Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit, based on the. findings, and with the
conditions contained in the attached resolution.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
days of the action. The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 1998. An appeal
may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. Whisenand
Development Review Manager
RW:mk
Attachment: Resolution 5224-98
L:1pc\46-98-(d)
ATTACHMENT; 5
V� TTelehe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
communications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.5224-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a
public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on May 27, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application A 46-98, William E.
Tickell, applicant/appellant.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
A 46-98: Review of an appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring
that a loft be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1535 Carmel Street
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium-Density Residential
PRESENT ZONING:
(R-2) Medium-Density Residential
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 :
L The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14
of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming
structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures on adjoining properties.
Resolution No. 5224-98
A 46-98
Page 2
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in
character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming
parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing
Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking
contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive
use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to
maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely as a
result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the
adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to
protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to
maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar
access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hearing Officer's decision denying the appeal
of Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 be upheld and subject to the following modified
conditions:
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required
parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind the other.
Resolution No. 5224-98
A 46-98
Page 3
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or
concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with
setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's
zoning regulations. The gross floor area shall not exceed 400 square feet.
4. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be
used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom (total
of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-
Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to
the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall
include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or
engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon a separate roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Ewan, Marx, Senn, Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioners Ready
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Jeffrey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
MK\PC\5224-98
—v23
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 3
are children in the neighborhood and more traffic is a concern. The neighborhood is
regenerating and it's going to be a nice.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission and staff discussed site parking, the garage size, and parking/street
access.
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Hearing
Officer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesey.
Commissioner Ashbaugh expressed concern about the inability to designate these units
for exclusive use. He feels this neighborhood is experiencing a regeneration and may
have major historical significant in relation to the Railroad Master Plan. The owner
seems to have attempted to max out the possibilities on the property. He's uncomfortable
with the tandem parking.
Commissioner Ready feels the proposed tandem parking can meet the criteria of tandem
parking on the site and parking spaces can be assigned for exclusive use by tenants of a
designated building. He cannot support the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Whittlesey, Marx, and Ewan
NOES: Commissioner Ready and Chairman Senn
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 4-2. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
2. 1535 Carmel Street: A 46-98: Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative '
use permit requiring that as loft be eliminated form a proposed structure containing a
detached bedroom; R-2 Zone; William Tickell, applicant and appcllant.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal,
upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit as conditioned.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the entire rear unit is referred to as a detached bedroom
or is it just the loft.
ATTACHMENT 6
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 4
Associate Planner Ricci stated the whole structure is referred to as a detached bedroom.
With the 3,600 s.f. of lot area, they are allowed an equivalent density of.99 units. She
noted the applicant and staff have been discussing a similar project at the site for three
years. There have been questions about the legal status of the rear building as a complete
dwelling unit.
Commissioner Ready asked how the tandem parking proposal with this application
differs from Item#1.
Associate Planner Ricci stated this is a one-bedroom house with a detached bedroom.
Item #1 request had two different units on the same site.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if there's a separate bathroom in the detached bedroom.
Associate Planner Ricci replied there's a bathroom downstairs. She explained that with
the elimination of the loft, the applicant may be modifying the design of the roof.
There were no further questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bill Tickell, applicant, is frustrated by what staff dictates is a bedroom. He demonstrated
on the overhead the configuration of the dwelling and added that he owns the property in
back. He had a foundation/skirting installed on front house. They're only proposing 100
s.f be added to the total density of the project. This is an old neighborhood and this
house was built in approximately 1920. The neighborhood is regenerating and he's doing
his best to make this project something the city/neighborhood can be proud of. In order
to make this a livable unit, it has to have some private areas. The sleeping loft serves as a
small space without walls/separation from the rest of the house. The second-story
requirements for the front house have been met. It's not his intent to rent this dwelling
out as two separate units.
Mr. Tickell has talked with legal counsel and feels Condition #4 is unfair and
unnecessary. Future restrictions are unrealistic. He feels an asphalt or concrete
driveway, Condition #2, will not be in keeping with the site. He suggests letting it exist
as is with red rock or earth.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels Condition #4 is important and reasonable given the
concern of it's historic rental use.
Associate Planner Ricci stated there's specific language in the covenant agreement that
addresses potential changes in the zoning requirements that may occur.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 5
Commissioner Marx expressed a procedural concern that the appeal was filed for
Condition#3 and now the applicant is requesting Conditions#2 and#4 be addressed.
Assist. City Atty. Trujillo stated the Commission is limited to the consideration of the
appeal; however, by majority vote the Commission may consider other items. There may
be a potential noticing requirement problem and continuance is recommended.
Chairman Senn explained to Mr. Tickell his options.
Associate Planner Ricci stated Condition #2 provides for alternative surfaces/paving.
This condition can be worked out with staff. She added the covenant agreement is
standard with projects of this type and it does provide a clause that if there*are changes to
the law in the future, that changes in conformance with the new laws can be considered.
Commissioner Marx suggested tabling this item to allow staff to provide Mr. Tickell with
a copy of the covenant agreement.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Marx moved to table Item #2 until Mr. Tickell has had an opportunity to
review the covenant agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready.
AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey, Ashbaugh, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
3. 879 Morro Street: GPC 87-98: Review of the General Plan conformity
determination for property acquisition for use as City offices or other public facilities; C-
CH Zone; City of San Luis Obispo,applicant..
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended determining and
reporting to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the
General Plan.
There were no questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened.
7��
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Howard Franklin, 891 Mill St., apt. owner, isn't concerned with city offices at this site,
but is worried about what `or other public facilities" may be. He's concerned about
protecting his property and does not support a parking lot at this site
Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for staff comment on the H designation.
Associate Planner Ricci stated the structure is not historic, but the location is in proximity
to historic Chinatown.
Commissioner Ready moved to determine and report to the City Council that the
proposed Qroverty acquisition conforms with the General Plan as shown on Page 2 of the
staff reportThe motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesev.
Commissioner Marx is concerned about uses other than city office use.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Marx, Ewan, Ashbaugh, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
2. 1535 Carmel Street: A 46-98: Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative
use permit requiring that as loft be eliminated form a proposed structure containing a
detached bedroom; R-2 Zone, William Tickell, applicant and appellant.
Commissioner Marx moved to bring tabled Item #2 back before the Commission. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready.
AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey, Ashbaugh, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ya7.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 7
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Chairman Senn reopened the public comment period.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Chairman Senn asked if Mr.Tickell reviewed the document referred to in Condition #4.
Mr. Tickell replied yes. He's comfortable with the covenant agreement and requested the
item proceed with hearing the appeal related to Condition#3.
Chairman Senn asked Mr. Tickell the rental history of the property.
Mr. Tickell stated the property has been rented primarily the last ten years as one rental
unit.
Chairman Senn had Mr. Tickell explain the renovation of the garage and asked for the
estimated improvement costs.
Mr. Tickell replied approximately $30,000 when complete. He noted although his
concern regarding Condition #4 wasn't included in his written appeal, he did express
before the Hearing Office that he wanted to consult with an attorney to discuss Condition
#4.
Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel, opposes the addition of the loft. The current structure is a 280
s.f. tear-down shed with a utility sink. The applicant/appellant previous was denied a 450
s.f. studio. The loft is considered a separate bedroom because of the square footage. The
addition would make this home much too large for the area. She's concerned about the
rental history and is convinced the addition will be used as a separate unit. The main unit
will be used as a two-bedroom unit and the garage will be a living area as well. She feels
this is too big a project in a small area
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked staff to clarify the square footage.
Associate Planner Ricci calculated approximately 440 s.f. including the loft. The plans
show 395.5 on the main floor of the bedroom..
Mr. Tickell disagreed with staffs calculations.
Commissioner Ashbaugh believes the usable square footage of the ground floor and loft
is closer to 400 s.f. than 500 s.f.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 8
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Marx moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Marx feels it's appropriate to grant the tandem parking but not the loft.
Commissioner Ewan agrees in principle to increasing densities, but is concerned that this
is an over increase in density. He supports staffs recommendation to deny the loft.
Commissioner Ashbaugh cannot support the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey is concerned about the size of the lot and the impact of the
expanded dwelling units. She expressed parking, traffic, and neighborhood noise
concerns. She feels the entire project should be looked at as to what is happening on this
nonconforming lot. She feels there will be less impact with the removal of the loft.
Commissioner Ready expressed no comments.
Chairman Senn reviewed the General Plan and feels strongly about regenerating
neighborhoods. He feels denial of this project may discourage future regeneration
projects. He feels the Commission shouldn't be suspicious as to what somebody might
do or how somebody might use their property. We have an enforcement dept. that deals
with inappropriate situations/uses. lt's not the Commission's job to base decisions on
speculation. He feels it's best for the city to see rehab investments made to improve
properties.
AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ewan, and Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioners Ready, Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to modify Condition #3 by deleting the last sentence and
replacing it with a sentence stating the proposed detached bedroom shall not exceed 400
s.f. of gross floor area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx.
Commissioner Marx is concerned about the height and mass of the building in terms of
the site/size of the lot.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 9
Associate Planner Ricci stated typically for a 5' setback, the building height can't exceed
12' for a wall facing the property line. This is addressed in Condition #3.
Commissioner Ready concurred with Chairman Senn. He could support a motion
striking the last sentence of Condition #3 rather than adding a modification regarding
gross floor area. We do have enforcement program to deal with situations that would
violate appropriate uses of the property.
The Commission and staff discussed the results of increasing the setback and the
necessary compliance with height requirements with the inclusion of the loft. Associate
Planner Ricci noted there isn't any implication by approval of the plans that the
Commission would also be approving a setback exception for the rear building.
Chairman Senn cannot support the motion. He doesn't feel the Commission should
decide the square footage or design the project.
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Marx, and Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioners Ewan, Ready, and Chairman Senn
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Commissioner Ready moved to strike the last sentence of Condition #3. The motion was
seconded by Chairman Senn.
Commissioner Marx isn't clear as to how much protection the ordinance gives the site
from having something out of proportion to the site and neighborhood in terms of the
building height in relationship to the property line.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels it inappropriate to dictate the design and interior
arrangements of this detached bedroom.
AYES: Commissioner Ready, Chairman Senn, and Commissioner
Ashbaugh
NOES: Commissioners Marx, Ewan, and Whittlesey
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to replace the last sentence of Condition #3 with the
sentence that the nr000sed detached bedroom shall not exceed 400 s f of total gross floor
area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 10
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Marx, Ewan, Whittlesey, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: Commissioner Ready
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 5-1. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Commissioner Ready noted the 19' loft height may not be possible with the existing
setbacks.
Commissioner Marx request a copy of the covenant agreement for future reference.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecasts for the
meetings of June 10, 1998, June 24, 1998, and June 30, 1998.
5. Commission:
Commissioner Ready requested retreat agenda item suggestions be forwarded/faxed to
him.
Chairman Senn distributed copies of last year's adopted resolutions and an update of
recent Council actions.
ADJOURNMENT:
There was no further business before the Commission and the meeting adjourned at 9:50
p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chambers, City Hall.
�_ 3/
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM 9 2
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner FK MEETING DATE: May 27, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: A 46-98
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Carmel Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that a loft
be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom for property located on
the southwest side of Carmel Street,between Buchon and Islay Streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit as
conditioned.
BACKGROUND
Situation
A small one-bedroom house and a detached bedroom currently exist on the site. The
applicant/appellant wants to add onto the front house and rebuild the rear building. On March
17, 1998, he applied for an administrative use permit to pursue the proposed project. The use
permit was necessary for three different reasons:
• to allow further development of a non-conforming lot(the R-2 site is only 3,600 square feet);
• to allow an addition to a non-conforming building - the front house is non-conforming in
terms of current street and side yard setback requirements;and
• to allow a setback reduction for the proposed addition to the front house -the building height
closest to the property line will be 19 feet(a 19' building height requires a 8-foot side yard; a
4-foot side yard exists).
Previous Review
On May 1, 1998, the Hearing Officer approved the use permit, based on findings, and with six
conditions. On May 1, 1998, an appeal of the decision was filed by the applicant on the basis of
a contention with Condition No. 3. Specifically, the appellant disagrees with the requirement to
eliminate the loft space from the rear building (detached bedroom). Appeals of the Hearing
Officer's actions are considered by the Planning Commission.
Data Summary
Address: 1535 Carmel Street ATTACHMENT 7
A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit)
Page 2
Applicant/Appellant: William Earl Tickell
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential(R-2)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt under Section 15302., Class 2, Replacement or
Reconstruction, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project action deadline: The zoning regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the
earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to
a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal.
Site Description
The fairly flat site contains 3,600 square feet and is developed with a small house, detached
garage and a small shed-like building that has been used over the years as living space. It is
located in the Old Town neighborhood and surrounded by other properties that are developed
with houses and apartments.
Proiect Descrintion
Submitted plans show that a sleeping loft will be added to the front house (currently a storage
area). To maintain the house as a one-bedroom unit, a portion of the wall in the existing
downstairs bedroom is proposed to be removed.
An existing 280 square-foot building behind the house, used since the 1940s as a detached
bedroom, is proposed to be removed. In its place, the applicant wants to build a 395.5 square-
foot building. Floor plans for the rear building show sitting and dressing room areas, a laundry
room, and a bathroom on the ground floor with a sleeping loft above.
EVALUATION
Planning staff has been discussing potential changes to the site with the applicant for several
years. Attached to this report is a letter from Planning staff outlining conclusions made on
September 13, 1995 regarding the site's development potential.
The property as developed is already at its maximum allowed density (0.99 equivalent density
units). The one-bedroom front house along with the detached bedroom consist of a total of two
bedrooms which has an equivalent density of 1.0. Therefore, staff earlier determined that
initially submitted plans showing the back building as a separate dwelling unit(studio apartment
with floor area of 450 square feet or less) would not be consistent with allowed density. A one-
bedroom house and a studio would have an equivalent density of 1.16(0.66+0.50= 1.16; 1.16>
0.99).
Plans were changed by the applicant to show a loft addition to the front house and the rear
building as a detached bedroom. While this exceeds the maximum allowable density of the site
�{-33
A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit)
Page 3
by 0.01, this level of development is consistent with the historical density of the site. The rear
building was also moved to comply with the minimum setback requirement of 5 feet.
Planning staff was satisfied with the revised plans and recommended approval of the use permit
with conditions including the provision of a driveway to City standards, filing of a covenant
agreement acknowledging allowed site density, provision of a building easement to maintain 10
feet between the front house and the adjacent property to the southeast, and the elimination of the
loft level from the detached bedroom.
Appellant's Position
The appellant submitted a statement received 5-1-98 that is attached to this report The statement
does not dispute the allowed density, but objects to the removal of the loft in the rear detached
bedroom building. He cites the space restrictions of the site as a reason that he proposing a taller
building with a loft. In conclusion, the appellant feels that planning staff is unreasonable in
rdquiring that the loft be eliminated from the rear building.
Staffs Analysis
Planning staff feels that its evaluation and judgment on the project has been both fair and
reasonable. The rear building is substandard and has not been used as living space in over a year.
The legitimacy of this building for use as living area has been questioned and the full extent of
facilities such as sanitation and cooking areas serving it historically is not completely known.
Staff has discussed other alternatives with the applicant to allow him to further develop the site,
One idea, a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property to the southeast that he also owns, is
not feasible since existing development at that site already exceeds maximum allowed density.
Therefore, staff felt that the revised project was the best solution to meet the applicant's needs
and to comply with property development standards.
As indicated in the attached minutes from the 5-1-98 administrative hearing, the extent of the
rear building's floor plan was questioned by staff and a project neighbor. The need for a separate
sleeping loft area in a detached bedroom was especially scrutinized. An almost 400 square-foot
building containing sitting, dressing, sleeping and laundry facilities is of a scale and intensity that
goes beyond the intent of a detached bedroom. The condition requiring the removal of the
sleeping loft is in keeping with the limitations placed on other separated living areas of single-
family houses to comply with density restrictions.
Conclusion
The Hearing Officer approved the requested use permit to enable the applicant to pursue his
project The only issue that the appellant has with that approval is the contested Condition No. 3
requiring the elimination of the loft. Commission review of the appeal should focus on this
issue.
�3�
A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit)
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve the appeal, thereby modifying Condition No. 3 to eliminate
the second sentence. The first sentence needs to be retained to assure that the taller building
fully complies with setback requirements.
2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff and the applicants/appellants.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Fire Department and Building Division noted previous code issues with the rear structure in
the past.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit, based on the
following findings,and with the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14
of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming
structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in
character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming
parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing
Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking
contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive
use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to
4-3S
A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit)
Page 5
maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a
result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the
adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to
protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to
maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar
access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods.
Conditions
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required
parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or
concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with
setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's
zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the
detached bedroom. °
4. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be
used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total
of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-
Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to
the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall
include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or
engineer's scale,landscaping proposals,and proposed driveway materials.
&Io
A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit)
Page 6
Attached:
Vicinity map
Project plans
Memo dated 9-13-95 regarding proposed improvements to buildings
Appeal letter from William Tickell dated 5-1-98
5-1-98 administrative hearing action letter&minutes
uxa 46-98(rioteu pc amort)
r
�-37
R-3 r d ° •
d 00
J
AM
ti OO=t
anus ✓'' sr •7
Aum eie ' � ,� tleKV Ids
2ID � rurr r
H!G H C-CJ .YC79-ss
STREET
ty 1 217 14, •sr1 75 ss1 sA•h ♦ 27 ! ! ?
4 El IP
10
El
AID
� ;n nar I mt p
�,D ,i7 ° w
N's 041 I h —` fslS xw o
r AM-t ",c
�e.
ZW.a-c Yai TN YO r¢n.r�-w..
SANC3ERCOCK x a"
.,, ., • ,�}� S YR E ET
p�!O /W•i b YSA fL1.HU we.0
p ai ❑ LJ ;^ I cl J a ❑
IV -tv
VICINITY MAP ' A 46_98 NOWH
1535 CARMEL
GAR /AEI. 5-1. 2EET
I—
za
+
,I Sx
-one.
F
_
t i e --,pp
o
I I a
i
�
I � ' I i I � j�• j
> I r
zT—
r
28
O q 1 1 rg li I•
�i
W
n
y m
�3y
- yy -� pe I
` I 41
o
r i•
rN
R § - o
r94 _ z
7o v
R N e 11LF-
n Z v
r
-
O _ _
CO - --- -
x
4
R C — �.
r n
D 1Y°s 4 Z
•a YY
N
O Y m
y n _
V
n �L m •�
D hA
I
- u QUM"" n
P �
September 13, 19956 CTo
WILLIAM EARL TICKELL, ARCH TEI CT
TO: Address File for 1535 Carmel
805-595-2322
FROM: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner 3233 Davis Canyon Road
off See Canyon Road
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to Buildings
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1535 Carmel: Currently is an existing one-bedroom house. Owner would like to add
new perimeter foundation and "pop-up" roof about 3 feet to add a sleeping
loft. The existing bedroom would be converted into a den or office by
opening up the wall to other living areas.
Condusion: Proposed changes in general,look acceptable. Would ask for a covenant
agreement to be recorded that the from unit is used as a 1-bedroom house.
The site has a maximum density of 0.99 equivalent units.
1535 1/2 Carmel: Existing detached bedroom that has been used for residential purposes
since at least the 1940s, but does not contain a kitchen or bathroom. Not
considered a dwelling unit by definition in the zoning regulations.
Owner would like to add bathroom, install new perimeter foundation,
provide new roof and create a second-story loft for sleeping.
Conclusion: No evidence that the unit has been anything other than a detached
bedroom in recent history (last 6 months). Therefore, proposed changes
other than new roof and foundation cannot be pursued since the size of the
lot would not allow a studio addition. Changes to structure would need
to be consistent with the 50% of replacement cost rule for nonconforming
structures.
C+ 6x5 m
Suggested that there may be a possibility of a lot line adjustment with
adjacent property that the property owner also owns. The idea would be
that the project site's area could be increased to allow for conforming
density (0.66 + 0.50 = 1.16- allowing a 1-bedroom house and a studio).
Parking: Two spaces would be required at minimum - one for each unit. The
existing garage could be removed.
Planning Process: An administrative use permit to allow additions to units would be required
-further development of a nonconforming lot and possibly, as conforming
additions to nonconforming structures.
(L9&
Loc?0
�
Cj�o A4
a
Al-4y � 17
RECEIVED
MAY 1 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4/-�a-
��iiu�hl���I11811111111111I�1 p@I��f ll►III
Illi III
city Of SAn tuis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
May 4, 1998
William Tickell
3233 Davis Canyon Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl.A 46-98
1535 Carmel Street
Dear Mr. Tickell:
On Friday, May 1, 1998, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow further
development of a non-conforming lot, to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure
(main house), and to allow reduced side yard from 8 feet to 4 feet at the above location.
After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the
Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions
to non-conforming structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a
minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is
in character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-
conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet
zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301.,
Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem
parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be
for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
I[� 1 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 4-113
—
Tnle..n....... ..:-�r:nn� r1....:.... b..'._ r--;famml TCS--/n U1
A 46-98
Page 2
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the
easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house
and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of,a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access
of the adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building
Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning
Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent
properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons, and to create a regular pattern of
building masses in neighborhoods.
Conditions
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The
required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind
the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as
asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's
Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development
Director. -
3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply
with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020
of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the
structure containing the detached bedroom.
4. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of
the Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the
site may be used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a
detached bedroom (total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be
recorded in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of
separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast. '/
A 46-98
Page 3
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process
shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's
or engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the .
action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision.
If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
-Rna d Whisenand
Hearing Officer by
�s
DRAFT
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY MAY 1, 1998
1535 Carmel Street. Use Permit Appl. A 46-98; Request to allow further
development of a non-conforming lot; to allow an addition to
a non-conforming structure (main house), and to allow
reduced side yard from 8 feet to 4 feet; R-2 zone; William
Tickell, applicant.
Pam Ricci presented the staff report, noting that for several years, Mr. Tickell has been
wanting to upgrade the two buildings on the site. Although this appears to be a fairly
small and seemingly simple project, it involves a number of different requests such as
further development of a non-conforming lot because the lot is only 3600 square feet.
A second component of this request is the loft addition proposed to the front house
which is non-conforming because it is only four feet from the side property line. Also
requested is a side yard reduction which would make the -new addition to the front
house conforming.
Ms. Ricci explained that the property, as it is currently developed with a one-bedroom
house and detached bedroom, is at its maximum density. She noted that since the last
hearing which was continued, the plans have been modified to include moving the rear
detached bedroom building so that it is five feet from the property line. She also noted
that planning staff had determined that, because of the density issues, the detached
building could not be a separate studio apartment with a bathroom and kitchen, so this
plan has been modified to show living space and a bathroom, with the kitchen
eliminated.
It was clarified that the City recognizes this rear structure as a detached bedroom, not a
separate unit. Because of the number of bedrooms on the site, converting the
detached bedroom to a studio or another one-bedroom unit would cause the allowed
density for the property to be exceeded.
Ms. Ricci indicated that Mr. Tickell had considered a lot line adjustment with the
property on the comer to make the subject property conforming, but it was determined
that the comer property was already over the density limits, so it was not a viable
alternative.
Ms. Ricci noted that staff supports the revised project, based on 11 findings and six
conditions, which she outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
William Tickell, applicant, spoke in support of this request. He was concerned with the
requirement that the surface of the driveway be paved and felt it should not apply in this
case, noting there is very little percolation on the site as it is, and a drainage problem
exists between the neighbor on the downside and his property. He was concerned with
controlling runoff.
Mr. Whisenand explained that altemative paving was available and a number of options
can be considered to resolve the runoff issues. He noted that historically city-wide,
porous pavers have been proven to be quite successful in resolving runoff issues.
Mr. Tickell asked if different sizes of gravel was an option, but Mr. Whisenand felt that
something more permanent, with a durable, dust-free surface was in order, such as a
paver or paving strips. He felt that tire strips might be an alternative to full paving.
Mr. Tickell explained that his attorney is reviewing the required covenant agreement,
and noted that the building in the back has-been used in the past, and is recorded as
having been used in the past as a separate residence, so that may be an issue that will
be pursued.
Mr. Whisenand asked how long it has been since someone has lived in the back
building as a separate residence. Mr. Tickell responded that it has been at least one
year, and that he removed the kitchen area and carpeting in anticipation of this project.
He also objected to staffs recommendation that the loft be removed from the rear unit.
Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel Street, said she lives next-door to the property on the downhill
side (below the driveway), and has lived at this address for six years. She explained
that in the past, a large number of people have lived there, sometimes more than four
people. She said she had concerns with density, and the fact that renters and students
are adept at fitting as many people in a unit as they can. Ms. Martin felt that if the back
unit is really considered a separate bedroom, it would not need a stairwell and sleeping
loft and a washer/dryer hookup. She felt that a tenant could rent a refrigerator and put
in a hot plate and have a nice small place to live. She reiterated that if it were a
separate bedroom, the common areas of the main house should be used for any sort of
activity such as the sitting room, washer/dryer, etc.
Ms. Martin also had concerns with the loft addition to the front house. She said a loft
currently exists, just underneath the roof which is being used as a bedroom. She felt
that the loft in the front house is acceptable, but also felt it would be used as an
additional bedroom. She commented that the plans note there is a wall dividing the loft
which looks like a fairly even division, denoted as 'storage with windows' and the other
as loft/bedroom. Her concern was the possible addition of another bedroom. She said
she had no problem with the addition of one sleeping area.
Ar/4 7
In response to a question from Ron Whisenand, Mr. Tickell said there is only one water
meter for both buildings.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Whisenand noted that historically it appears that there has been a sleeping area in
the back unit, but no indication of an active "separate unit" had been found. He
encouraged Mr. Tickell to submit any proof of an active separate unit that his attorney
or he may locate.
Mr. Whisenand explained that a non-conforming uses ceases after a given period of
time (typically six months) and, if indeed a legal unit in the back exists, the City would
not want to take it away.
Pam Ricci expressed the importance of the 'non-conforming status of the structure
which is closer to the property line, and that when it is demolished to accommodate the
new building, it must be brought into compliance.
Ron Whisenand agreed with staffs recommendation regarding the elimination of the
loft in the rear building because it is getting away from the intent of the non-conforming
use regulations that are in place. Based on this information, he approved the use
permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the
Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions
to non-conforming structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a
minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house.
3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is
in character with the type and scale of surrounding development.
4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-
conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet
zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301.,
Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines.
6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem
parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as it will be
for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling.
7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the
easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house
and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast.
8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard.
9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction.
10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access
of the adjacent property.
11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building
Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning
Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent
properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of
building masses in neighborhoods.
Conditions
1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The
required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind
the other.
2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as
asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's
Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply
with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020
of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the
structure containing the detached bedroom.
4. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of
the Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the
site may be used for no more than a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a
detached bedroom (total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be
recorded in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall run with the land.
5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of
separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the
adjacent property to the southeast.
6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process
shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's
or engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials.
Ron Whisenand explained that this decision is final unless appealed to the Planning
Commission within 10 days. He also encouraged Mr. Tickell to have his attomey
supply the City with any information that would provide some clarification as to the
status of the back building.
NY-
July 9, 1998 � N
Dear City Council/Kim Condon,
I am writing in regards to the Appeal notice hearing notice for the property at 1535 Carmel
St., San Luis Obispo. My property extends almost directly across the street on Carmel, my address
being on the comer of Carmel and Islay streets. I am writing,though perhaps too late to be consid-
ered to say that I am against any additional rental space added to this property in question.
For the nine years I have lived at this location I have had a constant battle with the occupants
of that greater property. If I am incorrect as to this fact than,I will stand corrected, but they seem to
be owned by the same owner, Mr. Tickle. The renters at this property over the years have been a
thorn on and off to it's peacable neighbors. I have personally witness persons from that property
breaking glass in the streets and not removing it, urinating in my yard, I have been harassed and
threatened by party goers, and have suspected much trash and vandalism. I witnessed one renter
there driving drunk and hitting a car in front of my house. Some of the renters there have been
respectful of the neighbors over the years,but the bulk of them have brought undue grief, and been
repeatedly irresponsible to their neighbors. For seasons on and off I have had to make regular calls
to the police department for loud parties between the hours of 10:00 and 2:00 a.m. My attempts to
appeal to the many different renters that come and go over the years has placed a burden on me that
is really unreasonable. The last time I tried to communicate with the occupants there,my car was
mysteriously vandalized two days later to the tune of$500.00. Then my mail box was destroyed one
year ago ($300.00); I have no way of knowing if that was related, still.
With regards to this issue, there is also the concern of parking (street). I have been told by
the city that I cannot add any additional rental space without providing on site parking for all. With
the number of occupants that currently rent at the whole property in question corner of Islay and
Carmel (that which 1535 adjoins) I would need to raise the concern that no more be added.
The following is not perhaps directly related to the aforementioned issue but I would like to
be heard about it. In addition to the incidents above, three years ago, a drunk driver crashed into my
front yard to the tune of an unrecoverable $750.00 damage. He also creamed the side of my renters
van parked out front. The police were polite, but there was no help to me available where the City
has been welcoming of the revenue of the student population, others of us seem to have to pay for its
drawbacks. I've seen this tolerance for the past 15 years I've lived here in different locations around
the city. This incident did not relate to renters at the property across the street,but there have been
many too many incidents at my property since I've owned it including two other hit and runs plus
one additional car vandalized. The later happened to persons who rented and lived at my property.
I've incurred quite a lot of expense because of persons, students,who seem to get a slap on the wrist,
or are not held responsible for themselves. I don't appreciate any tolerance by our city servants,
those charged to protect all our safety and rights, of persons choosing to behave in such a way.
Unfortunately the last conversation I had with the owner Mr. Tickle was not pleasant and it
did not make me feel as though he care much about the behavior of his renters. I wish it were
otherwise. I otherwise enjoy the architectural sensitivity he shows and his efforts to preserve histori-
cal properties.
0434
, EREECEIVED
998
nn Po er LERK
, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 544-4041