HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 121 PENMAN WAY (A 84-98). "'council y.�-98
j agenda nepont h® S
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Develo�jent Director Few AT
n
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Plaer`J
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for an exception to
reduce the yard requirements for an accessory structure at 121 Penman Way (A 84-98).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution"A" denying the appeal,and upholding the Planning Commission's action
on the subject project
DISCUSSION
Situation
On June 10, 1998, the City Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a setback
exception to reduce the side and rear yards for an accessory structure constructed without
building permits. In addition, the Commission directed the applicant to file any and all permits
with the City by July 10, 1998. At the time this report was prepared (July 8) no permit
applications had been filed. Staff will update the Council of the status of the building permits at
the July 21, 1998 meeting.
The neighbors believe that the structure is a non-permitted second dwelling unit and have filed
an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
Background
On April 21, 1998, the City Council approved an administrative use permit, on appeal, allowing
a conforming addition to a non-conforming residential structure at 121 Penman Way. A
condition of the Council's approval was that applicant, in processing the building permit for the
house addition,-concurrently bring all violations related to the structure into compliance with the
applicable City Codes.
After the April 21 meeting,the property owner contacted the Community Development Department
to find out what was needed to bring the structure into compliance with the applicable City Codes.
Staff informed the owner that he needed to do the following:
1) obtain any and all building permits for the structure to ensure compliance with the
Uniform Building Code and City Construction Codes.
2) bring the structure into compliance with City Zoning Regulations by either moving the
structure to conform to the R-1 yard requirements(5 feet for rear and side yards) or
obtaining an administrative use permit for an exception to reduce the building's
setback(yard)requirements.
Y ti
A 84-98 (Waller) Appeal
121 Penman Way
Page 2
On May 5, 1998, the property owner filed an administrative use permit application requesting a
setback exception for the structure.
On May 26, 1998,the building permits for the primary residence were issued because the applicant
had begun the process to bring the accessory structure into compliance with City Code.
On June 10, 1998,the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a setback exception
with findings and conditions. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 is a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution of Denial (Res. No. 5225-98).
Attachment 4 is a copy of the minutes for the June 10, 1998 meeting.
Evaluation
The appellant indicates that the structure is in violation of R-1 zoning,referring to it as a recently
constructed non-permitted second dwelling unit with a full bath, sleeping loft and kitchen
plumbing. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission denied the request for a setback
exception,and directed the applicant to: move the structure away from the property lines; remove
the kitchen sink and related plumbing; execute a covenant agreement restricting the
structure's use to accessory in nature; and to obtain the appropriate building permits for the
work. The Planning Commission action ensures that the structure is an accessory use, and that it
will not be used as a second dwelling unit. It would appear that the appellants concern has been
addressed with the Commission's action.
At the Planning Commission, some of the neighbors appeared to be in favor of demolishing the
structure. The question is whether the applicant is allowed to have an accessory structure, and if
the City Council has the authority to require the structure to be demolished. According to the
City Zoning Ordinance, accessory uses are allowed with primary uses in the R-1 zone (Section
17.22.010). An accessory structure can be an art bam, TV room or a guest house as long as it is
used in conjunction with a primary residence and complies with City Code. In accordance with
City Zoning Regulations, the property owner is allowed to have an accessory structure with his
primary residence. It is stag's opinion that the City Council can require the structure to be
brought into conformance with City Codes, but cannot require the applicant to demolish the
structure,if it can be moved and made consistent with all applicable City Codes.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may approve the appeal and modify the Planning Commission action. The
appellant is certainly not looking for the Council to reverse the action of the Commission
(which is normally the reason for filing an appeal) since it would allow the structure to
remain in close proximity to the property line. At best, the Council could modify the
Planning Commission's findings for denial and provide additional direction to staff and the
applicant.
2. The City Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant.
oL
A 84-98 (Waller)Appeal
121 Penman Way
Page 3
3. The Council deny the appeal and approve the use permit for a setback exception to reduce the
rear and side yards for an accessory structure. Note, the applicant would still need to
satisfactorily convert the structure for accessory use since the City's Zoning Regulations will
not allow the use of a detached secondary dwelling unit. If the Council approves the project,
it must establish the appropriate findings for approval.
Attachments
Attachment 1 -Draft Resolution"A"(Deny Appeal)
Attachment 2 -Planning Commission Staff Report of June 10, 1998
Attachment 3 -Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225-98
Attachment 4 -Minutes for Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 1998
Attachment 5 -Dario Roth letter dated August, 1995 (Submitted by Rick Racouillat at meeting)
Attachment 6-Applicant's Letter of Appeal, dated June 19, 1998.
02 3
Attachment i
Draft Resolution "A"(Deny Appeal) _
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 FOR A SETBACK
EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 121 PENMAN WAY,A 84-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 10, 1998,
and denied an administrative use permit application for a setback exception to reduce the rear and
side yards for an accessory structure at 121 Penman Way; and
-WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's action was appealed on June 19, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 21, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the applicant, the records of
the Planning Commission hearings and recommendation, 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.Action: The appeal is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
AYES: and on the following roll call vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21 st day of July, 1998.
ATTEST: Mayor Allen Settle
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
ty m Je orgensen
Attachment 2
Plan__.ig Commission Staff Report of ,,une 10, 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2" — -
BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: June 10, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager b .
FILE NUMBER A 8498
PROJECT ADDRESS: 121 Penman Way
SUBJECT: Setback exception to reduce side and rear yards for existing accessory structure at
121 Penman Way(see Attachment 1 -Vicinity Map).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the Administrative Use Permit with findings, and direct the applicant to bring the accessory
structure into compliance with the City Zoning Regulations.
Situation
On April 21, 1998,the City Council approved an administrative use permit on appeal allowing a
conforming addition to a non-conforming residential structure at 121 Penman Way. A condition
of the Council's approval was that the applicant bring all violations related to an illegal non-
conforming accessory structure,on the property, into compliance with the applicable City Codes.
In response to the Council direction, the applicant is attempting to bring the structure into
compliance and is requesting an administrative use permit to allow a setback exception to the.
R 1 yard requirements.
In accordance with City Zoning Regulations (Section 17.58.030.A1), the Hearing Officer is
referring the subject administrative use permit (A 8498) to the Planning Commission for
consideration. This decision is based on the Hearing Officer's determination that the project
involves public controversy that would be resolved more suitably by the Commission. Copies of
letters in opposition to the project are included as Attachment 5. In addition, staff has received
several telephone calls opposing the setback exception.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Project
The project is an administrative use permit for a setback exception to reduce the rear yard and
side yard for an existing accessory structure. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to
reduce the rear yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet, and the side yard setback from 5 feet to
15 feet A copy of the site plan is included as Attachment 2.
Located in the northwest comer of the lot, the accessory structure is approximately 15' x 21'
(315 square feet) and about 14 feet in height with a pitched roof and deck. Existing building
elevations are shown in Attachment 3.
�s
A 84-98 —y
121 Penman Way
Page 2
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). Situated on the hillside of Cerro San
Luis, the lot 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.
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(1): existing
accessory structure to single family dwelling.
Project action deadline: July 3, 1998
Proiect Background and Permit History
The following information will give the Planning Commission some important background on
the proposedproject. This project chronology establishes when the structure was built; discusses
the structure's original use and present use; identifies the specific building improvements that
were completed without the appropriate permits; and reviews City (including City Council,
Planning Commission and City staff)actions taken on the illegal non-conforming structure.
According to City building permit records, the primary residence was constructed in 1951.
Although there are no official records, it appears that the small shed was also built in the 1950s.
It is staffs understanding that the structure was built by the original homeowner and used as an
art studio or potting shed. The original shed was approximately 15' x 15' (225 square feet) and
seven feet high with a flat roof. Photographs that show the original condition and location of the
shed are included as Attachment 4. As shown in the photographs,it appears that the shed was in
its original condition and location when the applicant acquired the property.
On March 5, 1998, a complaint was filed with the City Neighborhood Services Manager and a
field investigation was initiated. The complaint alleged that the former potting shed had been
converted to a second dwelling,which is illegal in the R-1 zone.
A 84-98
121 Penman Way
Page 3
On March 11, 1998, the Community Development Department - Building Division staff
inspected the property and discovered that the property owner (the applicant) had made
substantial renovations to the structure without the required building permits. Specifically, the
size of the structure was increased from 225 sq. ft. (15' x15')to 315 sq. ft(15' x 21')to include a
bathroom and a sleeping loft; the building's height went from 7 feet to about 14 feet with a
pitched roof in place of the flat roof; and a new deck was added. Other improvements included:
new foundation work at the front of the structure, new electrical and plumbing, new windows
and doors, new drywall and exterior siding. All of these improvements were made without
building permits.
On March 12, 1998, the Neighborhood Services Manager sent the owner a letter informing him
that the improvements to the small shed were in violation of the City Municipal Code (building
and zoning regulations), and that he was to cease occupancy of the non permitted building and
obtain any required permits for the construction.
On April 21, 1998, the City Council approved administrative use permit A-6-98 allowing a
conforming addition to the primary residence with the provision that all violations regarding the
accessory structure be brought into compliance with the applicable City Codes.
After the City Council action, the applicant contacted the Community Development Department
to find out what was needed to bring the accessory structure into compliance with the applicable
City Codes. The applicant was advised that he needed to obtain any building permits required
for the construction, and informed to bring the structure into compliance with the City Zoning
Regulations.
On May 5, 1998,the applicant filed a planning application for an administrative use permit for a
setback exception to reduce the rear and side yard setback requirements for the existing structure.
EVALUATION
The proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the City General Plan and compliance
with the City Zoning Regulations. Specific issues examined included: 1) whether the accessory
structure is allowed in the R-1 zone; 2) the City's criteria for yard exceptions and whether the
project meets those criteria; 3) similar requests.considered by the Planning Commission and
whether there is an established precedence for allowing setback exceptions; and 4) potential
options available to the applicant, if the setback exception is denied. Following is a brief
discussion on each issue.
General Plan Consistency
The project site is designated Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. Therefore, a second
dwelling unit on the property is not allowed, and would cause the property to be inconsistent
with the General Plan with respect to density and neighborhood compatibility. However, the
A 84-98
121 Penman Way
Page 4
structure can be used as an accessory structure (ie. den, art sturdio, etc.) which would be
consistent with the General Plan.
Zoning Regulations
Accessory Structures are Allowed in the R-1 Zone
Under current City Zoning Regulations, accessory structures are allowed with principal
structures provided they comply with the applicable property development standards(i.e.density,
building height, lot coverage, yard requirements). The Zoning Ordinance states that: "Accessory
means clearly subordinate or incidental and ,directly related to a permitted use or
structure" (Section 17.04.020).
The applicant has indicated that the structure is presently being used as a TV room, and that he
has plans to use it as an art studio in the future. Both of these uses are defined as accessory and
are allowed in conjunction with the primary residence. To ensure the accessory structure cannot
be easily converted to an illegal second unit, staff recommends that the sink in the art studio
room be called out as an industrial type sink and not a kitchen sink, and that the property owner
enter into a Conditions of Use of Structures Agreement with the City to ensure that the structure
will be used as an accessory structure and not a second dwelling unit.
Yard Requirement Exceptions
City Zoning Regulations provide for two general types of exceptions to the yard requirements.
First, those situations in which the property is entitled to an exception because of physical
circumstances (e.g. steep slopes, creek ). Second, those.situations in which the City may
approve upon request and subject to certain discretionary criteria. Staff evaluated the project to
determine if the project meets either of these sets of criteria.
Physical Circumstances. There are no physical circumstances which would justify the granting
of an exception to the yard requirements. The structure is not situated on a steep lot or subject to
any other physical constraint which would have prohibited it from complying the R-1 yard
requirements. In fact, the lot is approximately 13,200 sq. ft. (0.30 acres)with sufficient area for
the structure to have been installed in a location that would satisfy the R-1 yard requirements.
Discretionary Exceptions. Section 17.16.020.E.2d of the Zoning Regulations states that upon
approval of a use permit, the Community Development Director may allow other yards to be
reduced under two circumstances:
1. Building setback easement: Where there exists adequate recorded agreement running with
the land to maintain at least 10 feet or separation between buildings on adjacent parcels.
The applicant was advised that he could approach his neighbors and obtain a building setback
A 8498
121 Penman Way
Page 5
easement to maintain a 10-foot separation between the accessory structure and existing or
future buildings on adjacent properties. The property owner has not obtained an easement
from his neighbors, and it is very doubtful that they would be willing to grant him a building
setback easement as it would place a development restriction on a portion of their property.
As such,this criteria has not been met.
2. tenor additions: When the reduction is for a minor addition to an existing legal structure
which is non-conforming with regard to yard requirements with certain provisions.
Since the accessory structure was illegally constructed without permits and is non-
conforming,it does not meet this criteria.
Precedent-setting actions(Similar Projects in Comparable Situations)
Another factor to be considered in evaluating the applicant's request for a setback exception is
how similar projects in a comparable situation have been handled by the City. There.are many
situations in the City in which an accessory structure has been installed illegally without permits,
and the property owner applied for permits only after being cited in violation of the Municipal
Code. There are also situations in which a structure was legally constructed with building
permits, but became a legal non-conforming structure due to a change in zoning regulations.
These types of situations require that each project be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to
determine if there are overriding considerations or extenuating circumstances which should be
considered in the Commission's decision. In the past, the Planning Commission has approved
similar projects in comparable situations, and may want to consider if there are circumstances
that would warrant approval of the applicant's request. In this particular case, the Commission
may want to give consideration to the fact that the shed was an existing structure constructed
before the applicant acquired the property; no useful purpose would be served by requiring the
full yard,and the applicant has expended a substantial amount of money to improve the structure.
Applicant Options
If the setback exception is not approved, the applicant has two other options. First,the applicant
could demolish the structure and rebuild it in compliance with R-1 property development
standards. According to the City's March 11, 1998 investigation report, the applicant admits to
spending about $38,000 on renovations to the building. Given this substantial investment, the
applicant understandably wants to preserve the structure and not demolish it. Second, the
structure could possibly be moved away from the property lines towards the middle of lot and
placed in a location that complies with the R-1 yard requirements. This appears to be a feasible
option as the structure's floor system is primarily a raised wood floor on posts with concrete pier
footings rather than concrete slab.
�-9
A 84-98
121 Penman Way
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may also consider the following two alternative actions.
1. The Planning Commission may approve the project (administrative use permit A 84-98). If
the Commission decides to approve the project, the Commission must establish the
appropriate findings and conditions. Refer to discussion under "Precedent Setting Actions"
section of this report
2. The Planning Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicant.
RECOMN[ENDATION
Deny the administrative use permit application for a setback exception based on the following
findings,and direct the applicant to file any and all applications with the City by July 10, 1998 to
bring the accessory structure into compliance with all building and zoning requirements.
Findings:
1. There are no physical circumstances that would justify the granting of a setback
exception to reduce the R-1 yard requirements.
2. The accessory structure does not meet the criteria for a discretionary exception as
specified in Section 17.06.020.E.2(d)of the City Zoning Regulations.
3. Although the original 225 sq.ft structure was constructed prior to the applicant acquiring
the property, there have been substantial building renovations including the addition of
approximately 90 sq.$. and the property owner has had sufficient opportunities to bring
the structure into compliance with the applicable City Codes.
4. The requested exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the
property. It appears that there are alternatives,available to the applicant,that would bring
the existing accessory structure into compliance with City standards.
5. The accessory structure was illegally constructed without building permits,the applicant
has made substantial improvements converting the shed into a habitable space which is a
violation of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2- Site Plan
Attachment 3- Building Elevations Attachment 4- Photos of Original Shed
Attachment 5- Letters Opposing the Project.
JShoabWJA WS Penman PC.doe
2-/0
Attat Ament 1 - Vicinity:Map
. m
IBIBc v-anz
J< .1 sIBs IBIS Oaf .a� 6f7 69
�"
7LUNET _
° O..' •."0' .° .O• sIBc s,•„ saw �' :g
a+ rn
i . .
Y
<1A
Y
EFt Wag
AfY11. •-W _ .
.. _ .MC IL1tn= FJC AD/B4 f1a 1707 J�
0.
lim
Gro IIBs
IBna n-an nz ..
445
n
�,vl. O . . .O . 7r .
_ U F Q ,
W
0
Osic
1
w O
o N °
R'1 -'- - _
to
10
00
ttJ BwIBo
�`/' ,O
i
eRtoRo
CITY LNITS
Pill
VICINITY MAP "°'T'
I
II'
O
4
i
Ila
En L
1I■■
SIN �mno
Imo■■ N■■�■►. ``
� I�a�B•Y���G. � � I�I
Ross '' Mi
SIS:` ■■�■■■■■■� !.■■=nT�LINE 'ss�
�..�... .\..�F' . LII C. r..� O
ilii';:■ 0A■■ N.M.
Bra Fir"
<_ i
NEW
i
_•-�`g57YSS'i�NY_'�:;,„v�fAtJ- W�F'�iC�. � - -
,.
14' 09
---
MCK
. 33
FLOOR PLAN
Z �
lost I
I
.w !
�! WLL
I
0
w•�� I
f
: w
13
LIJ
1 SII
I I,
:fA
W
W
2 Z; . I .
- -- - 31 I =
Attachment 3 - Building Elevations �_��
Attachment 4 - Photos of Original Sned
:._ '1' •:.:>�•r a.. 'y�:.:YM144
nF "•;Y F:::+�:.. .i..,. %Y?:' 'Y+.-" '�•,�. r'Ct.�J•
r S•+.. !Si II�..0- `. =w 'a��Y�-0j.:y_•. �1rS'r.. �j',�.•�+'qp�-� /
' `� ,r"• • • _�l' •:f�• a 1S ` - d�� a,�_.�-•.:::�a•�?. yr,.•1 t: �i,iS +
I
I
. •�• G til►•
r�
.:,±•'.yam
1 t''hL$��+.tom • s
d'J
4
_4
h�,,crrr r i.LI _ � ti. \t ?_ems• i.:
'�� rte•:..:;- 'p t' `.i'(�I.i '
_
q Uli IIIA
Y-: 1
IN
Y�
Attachment 5 - Letters Opposing the Project
RECEIVED -
JUN 02 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
June 2, 1998
TO: San Luis Obispo Plarming Commission SUBJECT: Public Comments re Project#3
Att'n. J.Shoals on Agenda for Wednesday
6/10/98 Meeting
FROM: Robert and Jean Adamson L'ij:,'.;:% (121 Penman Way)
(nearby residents at 180 Serrano Hts.)
Tel. 543-5957
Our objection to the proposed reduction in building boundary limits is based on the following reasons:
FIRE& SAFETY: Restricted access for fire engines and equipment due to narrow,one lane-road
on Penman Way and insufficient space between houses.
Establishing a poor precedent for the future re house remodeling and/or Lot Splits.
RESTRICTED ACCESS for Repariing the JOINT SEWER LATERAL serving FOUR homes
on Serrano Heights.
Loss of open green space-- R-1 zoning was established and houses purchased so that some
minimal degree of privacy and gardening is afforded,but variances such as this destroy what
little remains for everyone.
�a9
Attachment 3 —
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5225-98
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 June 10, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application A 84-98,Donald Waller,a
applicantlappellant; Robert and Jean Adamson, Madi Gates, Natalia Neil, Rick and Pam
Racouillat, and William P.McWhinney, appellants.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
A 84-98: Review of setback exception to reduce side and rear yards for existing accessory
structure.
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)Low-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 :
1. There are no physical circumstances that would justify the granting of a setback
exception to reduce the R-1 yard requirements.
2. The accessory structure does not meet the criteria for a discretionary exception as
specified in Section 17.16.020.E.2(d) of the City Zoning Regulations.
01
3. Although the original 225 sq.ft. structure was constructed prior to the applicant acquiring
the property, there have been substantial building renovations including the addition of
approximately 90 sq.ft. and the property owner has had sufficient opportunities to bring
the structure into compliance with the applicable City Codes.
4. The requested exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the
property. It appears that there are alternatives, available to the applicant,that would bring
the existing accessory structure into compliance with City standards.
5. The accessory structure was illegally constructed without building permits, the applicant
has made substantial improvements converting the shed into a habitable space which is a
violation of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
6. The applicant shall remove the sink and related plumbing to meet the definition of
accessory structure in the City Zoning Regulations.
7. The owner shall enter into a Conditions of Use of Structures Agreement (covenant
agreement)with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure that the structure is not used as a
second dwelling unit Said agreement shall be executed and recorded with the County
Clerk of San Luis Obispo County prior to the issuance of building permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hearing Officer's decision denying a request
for a setback exception submitted under Administrative Use Permit A 84-98 be upheld.
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, Ready, Senn, Whittlesey
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Jeffrey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
NflCT 1 55-98
.4
L40
Attachment.4 y.LQt, Co ,
Minutes =
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 10, 1998 y
Page 8
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner J ey was absent.
2. 121 Penman Way: A 84-98: Request to allow a reduced side yard from 5' to 1.5'
and a reduced rear yard from 5' to 3' for a detached residential accessory structure;R-
1 Zone;Don Waller, applicant.
Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended denying the
Administrative Use Permit with findings and directing the applicant to bring the
accessory structure into compliance with City Zoning Regulations.
Commissioner Ready asked why staff set July 10 as the deadline date of application.
Associate Planner Shoals replied it is 30 days from today and noted this in an ongoing
code enforcement case.
There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened.
PUBIC COMMENTS:
Donald Waller, owner, bought the property five years ago with the structure in the
backyard The structure was used as an art studio. He noticed the structure sagged on its
piers, leaked, and needed rewiring and safety improvements. He feels adding the
bathroom was an over enthusiastic mistake. He uses the structure as a home office. The
physical footprint of the building is the same as before, except for the bathroom. He
would like-to maintain the building in the same location.- It would cost approximately
$7,500-510,000 to move. There are no intentions for anyone to live in this structure and
he's willing to sign a covenant restricting the use.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if more foundation work would be necessary if the
structure were moved
Mr. Waller replied a perimeter concrete foundation would be appropriate. Footings
would have to be hand dug.
Commissioner Marx asked the height of the lofh
Mr. Waller replied 3'. It's very uncomfortable. He would be happy to enclose the space
as storage.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 9
Commissioner Ewan asked if the structure would need a permanent foundation if it
remained in its present location.
Mr. Waller isn't sure.
Chairman Senn asked if the structure has ever been rented out.
Mr. Waller replied no.
Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Waller would be willing to remove the bathroom.
Mr. Waller prefers leaving the bathroom as is because of its convenience.
Rick Racouillat, 511 Serrano Dr., stated this is an illegal R-2 unit in an R-1 Zone. The
issue, in this city, is whether or not is better to.build illegally and ask for forgiveness than
it is to ask for permission in the fust place. He asked if the Commission reviewed the
letter submitted by Dario Roth dated August 1995.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that letter is part of the City's
enforcement case which is a separate action.
Mr. Racouillat distributed copies of this letter and stated Mr. Roth was hired by Mr.
Waller to complete work on the illegal structure. Mr. Racouillat said that he spoke with
Mr. Roth who confirmed the statements in his letter that the structure is entirely new and
not a renovation. There were no inspections,permits,or licensed contractors used for this
structure. Mr. Racouillat noted the structure is plumbed for a kitchen. The Council
conditioned that issuance of a building permit for Mr. Waller's residence be concurrent
with correction of this violation. This unit should be brought into conformance and the
variance request should be denied.
Don Koberg, 539 Serrano Dr., previously submitted a letter requesting denial of the
variance. The structure is a complete studio apartment with a bathroom, electricity, and
plumbing. This changes its classification from accessory. The original building was
entirely demolished and this is an entirely illegal building that was not subject to taxes,
inspections, fees, et cetera. The Council mandated the illegal construction and setbacks
be resolved prior to issuance of a permit for construction on the same site. If the building
were moved, it would still be illegal in this zone.
Jean Adamson, 180 Serrano Hts., previously submitted a letter requesting denial of the
variance. She's concerned about fire access and safety issues. She feels this will set a
precedent in this R-1 Zone. The original structure was an arbor with a lattice top. The
Previous owners expanded the structure,but it didn't have electricity, plumbing, or water.
/
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 10
It was strictly used as a potting/artist shed. It was never used as living quarters. The
building had a flat roof and was very rustic.
Jim Gates, 125 Serrano Hts., stated he's remodeled his home twice and went through the
permit process.. A former neighbor of Mr. Waller indicated previous unpermitted work at
his former residence. He supports staffs recommendations. He's concerned about
setting a neighborhood precedent.
Netalia Neil, 120 Serrano Hts., stated this building was not renovated. A new building
was built. This is an R-1 area and this structure is illegal. She's concerned about setting
a neighborhood precedent.
Pam Racouillat, 511 Serrano Dr., explained her personal experience with the permit
process during a backyard project. Mr. Waller.should have to follow the same rules/laws
as everyone else.
Mr. Racouillat stated this unit is a residential unit and cannot be brought into
conformance.in the R-1 Zone by simply moving it behind the setback.
Mr. Waller stated this small 14' by 14' building that will never be used as living quarters.
Chairman Senn asked if Dario Roth performed the work.
Mr. Waller replied yes, he did a lot of the labor and concrete work. A licensed contractor
was used for the electrical and plumbing work.
Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Roth's statement about work being done without permit is
true.
Mr. Waller replied he did not have permits.
Mr. Koberg added that licensed contractors can have their licenses revoked if they don't
obtain proper permits. He questions who the contractors were.
Seeing no fii ther speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ready moved to deny the Administrative Use Permit anplication for the
setback excention based uvon the findings set forth on Page 6 of the staff report
specifically Nos. 1-5, and directed the applicant to file any and all applications with the
JA7-1
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 10, 1998
Page 11
City by July 10. 1998, to brine the accessory structure into compliance with all building
and zoning requirements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the plumbing will be removed.
Associate Planner Shoals feels this would be appropriate under the definitions of the
Zoning Regulations. He noted that moving the structure doesn't mean it's in compliance.
Staff will recommend the sink be removed so that it functions as a true accessory
structure and complies with the definition of the Zoning Ordinance.
AYES: Commissioners Ready,Marx,Ewan, Whittlesey,Ashbaugh, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
3. 525 Cerro Romauldo: U 96-97: eview of an approved Use Permit for a school to
consider the possibility of increasin school enrollment and to evaluate compliance
with other conditions; R-1 Zone; San L is Christian School, applicant
Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff port and recommended allowing the school
use to continue, based on the original f ings and subject to modified use permit
conditions.
Chairman Senn asked if any complaints h e been received
Associate Planner Shoals replied no.
There were no further questions/comme and the public comment session was opened.
PUBIC COMMENTS:
Dede Leece, applicant, stated the school hasn't r ived any complaints and they've had a
great year.
Commissioner Ewan appreciates the carpooling eff rts and offsetting school hours. He
asked if these efforts will be continued with the a ent expansion.
Ms. Leece replied yes:
Attachment 5
Dario Roth letter dated August, 1995 (from Rick Racouillat)
15 August, 1995
To whom It.may concern;
During the summer of 19941 responded to an ad seeking a gardener at the Cal Poly
Placement Center. The ad was placed by Don Waller. After meeting with Mr. Waller he
became aware that I was a graduate of Architecture from Cal Poly and asked me if I
would be capable and interested in undertaking a construction project at his residence
on Penman Way (I believe the address was='i4i Penman Way).
The project he had in mind-was the conversion of an apprgximately.l5 foot by 15 foot
^ -by 7 foot high shed into a a fully self-contained and separate living quarters. Because
theshed was sitting on a small hill'towards,the rear of the property (butting the back
property line and closest towards Serrano Drive) it had begun to slide down and was
no longer level. I was told that the original purpose of the shed was to house an artists
studio for the wife of the previous owner.
Prior to beginning any work I asked Mr. Waller if he had had any plans drawn or if he
had filed for a building permit. Mr. Waller informed me that he did not feel that the city
need be involved,and that it was his intention to complete the work as soon as
possible and without drawing any attention to it (because it was in the back yard). He
also told me that he had checked with the neighbors and that they had all said it was
allright.
For the remainder of the summer and into part of fall I remained in Mr. Waller's employ
as a laborer. During this time I either took part in or was a witness to the following:
construction of a 42" high by 20 foot long retaining wail, demolition of the existing shed
roof and four 7 foot high walls, the poudrig bf a 6 foot by 7 foot stem wail foundation (to
serve as the new full bath), the connecting of a new sewer line to the existing sewer
line (under the main house), the running of water lines, electric service (including a
service sub-panel), CATV and telephone lines, and the addition of a 6 foot by 20 foot
deck along with a stair and railings. I left Mr. Waller's employ due to a better job offer
but continued to see progress such that eventually a complete structure resulted. I am
including a sketch drawn to the best of my recollection.
I have nothing personal against Mr. Waller. However, I feel this kind of illegal activity is
not right. It ends up costing everybody more in the long run. Just as Mr. Waller feels he
is entitled to call upon the services of the city when he feels he has been wronged, so
should those others of us be able,to ensure that everybody is being regulated evenly.
Srn�R L�n►6 h��up.
Sincerely, CvNil erE�
Dar Gabriel Roth
9 f Crestview Dr. --�-�s`-
-� New
San Carlos,,CA 94070
415-592-3227 otP- M41A! W,4��
POQT ftsIX CE
06-
TPA t=oR
t 5 �
. 3
SUP $F-FO'\I- � NEW �DOFCK
l7r S{HFC) TE JZ e2�.7
Attachment 6 y
�I�IllllI
�
SAn lu�s ops -
i cit o
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
Sean Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
rendered on -/0 - 76
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. use additional sheets as needed.)
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department \ (Date) ('
Appellant: s�l�-GcJ��4�-2� l�J j4Q44' Z;' l�%� 1/l o
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 9 �
5?3 ioZ3 ��3 5
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
NamelTitle Mailing Address (& Trp Code)
For Official use Only:
Calendared for Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
Original in City Clerk's Office �tT �
u, LX7
Mp�a1L AJD PEMC&p'5
OF E
c�-15ro n� D� �r ��-An/.✓/ j �r�l/v1/15�a i✓ 7S .
AXW
401AOO� A mf it
47- 7a
a� Z7is i� vlDc.,4-TtorJ ®� �j �vi,JG
ME IG AGENDA
July 20, 1998 DATE 4/ V ITEM #
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Re: San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting: July 21, 1998
Public Hearing Item #2
Appeal - 121 Penman Way
We join in the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a request for an
exception to reduce the yard requirements for an accessory structure at 121
Penman Way for a narrow, limited purpose.
We DO NOT APPEAL the resolution of the Planning Commission; we seek to
SUPPLEMENT IT. We DO NOT REQUEST that the accessory building be
demolished.
We are concerned about FIRE & SAFETY ISSUES since there is restricted
FIRE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS to the accessory building that threatens
adjoining dwellings. Also, we are concerned that the building WAS NOT
CONSTRUCTED in compliance with applicable building and safety codes.
Thererfore, we REQUEST that the City Council GRANT this Appeal and
APPROVE the draft Resolution set forth in Attachment 2 hereto.
Thank you.
Attachments
1 Names &Addresses of Signatories
2 Draft Resolution ' L D°rn�
_ FCLERK/ORIG
❑FIr : ' .
_ EIVED ❑POLICE C::;
❑MG� ❑REC DIR
I I I I 2 Q 1998 p/ ❑U7il DIR
1 ❑` O PERS DIR
CLERK
Attachment 1
Names and Addresses of Signatories
Rick & Pam Racouillat Jim & Madi Gates
511 Serrano Drive 125 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Natalia Neil Robert &Jean Adamson
120 Serrano Heights 180 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
2
r
` Attachment 2
Draft Resolution
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON
AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR A SETBACK EXCEPTION TO
REDUCE THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
AT 121 PENMAN WAY, A 84-98
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Action: The appeal is hereby granted. The Planning Commission
action is approved with the following additional requirements:
1. The applicant will remove the sink and related plumbing to meet
the definition of an accessory structure in the City Zoning Regulations, and
shall comply with all other applicable City Zoning Regulations, including
without limitation, those applicable to setbacks (rear and sideyard setback of
at least 6 feet), fees, uses, coverage, parking, retaining walls, smoke alarms,
and drainage.
2. The accessory building shall comply with the applicable provisions
of City Zoning Regulations relating to electrical wiring, plumbing, sewer
connections and other components of the accessory building,
3. The applicant shall enter into a Conditions of Use of Structures
Agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure that the structure is not
used as a second dwelling unit. The Agreement shall be recorded.
4. The foregoing requirements shall be completed before occupancy of
the residential unit at 121 Penman Way is permitted.
5. A City Inspector shall inspect the accessory building after
relocation and verify in a written report, full compliance with City Zoning
Regulations and these resolutions.
6. Neighbors within 150 feet of 121 Penman shall be provided a copy
of(i) the proposed Conditions of Use of Structures Agreement with a
reasonable opportunity to comment before it is signed, (ii) the Conditions of
Use of Structures Agreement after it is signed, and (iii) the City Inspector's
report prepared in accordance with paragraph 5 above.
* * r
3