The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/18/2003, PH 5 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONVERT A 2-CAR GARAG counat D� j acEnaa REpoRt h.N�mb. N s' CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner 1111„ SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONVERT A 2-CAR GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE AND CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 2-CAR CARPORT AS REPLACEMENT PARKING, 1892 OCEANAIRE DRIVE (ARC 48-03). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal, and uphold the Architectural Review Commission's action on the subject project. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1892 Oceanaire Drive Applicant/Property Owner: David Schmitt Zoning/General Plan: R-1; Low Density Residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Situation On April 16, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance 1412, which amended Section 2.48.170 of the Municipal Code expanding the jurisdiction of Architectural Review to include the conversion of required covered parking. This code section specifically applies to Low Density Residential (R- 1) zoned properties where a requirement exists for two parking spaces, one covered. The purpose of the new regulations is to prevent the proliferation of carports or other covered parking structures that are out of character with the architecture of the existing dwelling and neighborhood. In September of 2002, City staff was advised that people were living in an illegally converted garage at 1892 Oceanaire Drive. Based on research of City records, it was determined that the modifications to the structure require both planning and building review, and a code enforcement case was opened for the subject property. On April 22, 2003, the appellant submitted an application for Architectural Review to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a detached 2-car carport as replacement covered parking. On October 6, 2003, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) denied the request 1 Council Agenda Report—ARC 48-03 November 18,2003 Page 2 based on findings outlined in the attached decision letter (Attachment 3). On October 16, 2003, the appellant filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision (Attachment 4). Site Description The lot consists of approximately 9,620 square feet. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling, 2-car garage, ornamental landscaping and various other site improvements. A perennial creek with a good riparian corridor exists along the rear property line. The surrounding area is residential in nature. The area to the north, south and west is zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences; the area to the east falls within County jurisdiction and is currently being used for agricultural crop production. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). PrOiect Description The project is a proposal to convert a 2-car side-loaded garage into two bedrooms, and construct a detached 2-car carport along the southerly side of the property as replacement covered parking. No exceptions to the City's Zoning Regulations are being requested. Architectural Review Commission Action On October 6, 2003, the Architectural Review Commission voted six to zero (Commissioner Lopes absent) denying the request to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a 2- car carport as replacement covered parking, based on findings as indicated in the attached decision letter (Attachment 3). The Commission was concerned with the aesthetics of the proposed detached carport because it appeared like an afterthought to other site development and was not consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood (see attached draft minutes from October 6, 2003, Attachment 5). Appeal Filed On October 16, 2003, David Schmitt filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision (Attachment 4). The appellant believes that the 2-car carport design is architecturally compatible with the existing structure, and is asking the City Council to approve the proposed project as submitted. In the event that the City Council does not support the 2-car carport design, the appellant would be willing to construct a 2-car garage as replacement covered parking, as indicated in the appeal letter. Evaluation The City's Community Design Guidelines state that additions should respect the architectural style, detailing, scale and composition of the original building so they appear integrated with the �-Z Council Agenda Report—ARC 48-03 November 18,2003 Page 3 original structure. Garages and carports should avoid the common problem of creating streets that appear garage and driveway dominated. Also, General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10 state that new development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale and character. The applicant states that a 2-car garage would be a feasible alternative in the event the Council does not support the 2-car carport design.. Although a 2-car garage may be a financially feasible alternative for the applicant, it would significantly increase the massing of the structure as viewed from the public right-of-way and appear out of character with the site and development pattern established in the neighborhood. In addition, a 2-car garage would block views from an existing bedroom window facing Oceanaire Drive, which does not respect the functional or architectural composition of the original building. Staff remains concerned over the aesthetic qualities of carports and additional garages placed in front of existing residences as a solution to expanded floor area needs. Based on the project site plan, it appears there is adequate space in the rear yard area for an addition that would accomplish the applicant's goals without the need to convert the existing 2-car garage or adversely affect neighborhood character. CONCURRENCES The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision does not affect other City departments. FISCAL Il1IPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has no fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may uphold the appeal and approve the request to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a 2-car carport as replacement covered parking. 2. The City Council may deny the appeal but approve a garage conversion request with design changes and/or modifications. 3. The City Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellant. s�3 Council Agenda Report—ARC 48-03 November 18,2003 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Scale Project Plans 3. ARC's Decision Letter Dated October 9, 2003 4. Appeal of the ARC's decision received October, 16, 2003 5. Draft ARC minutes of October 6, 2003 6. ARC staff report 7. Draft Resolution "A" Deny the Appeal 8. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" Uphold the Appeal G:\tcorey\CC\ARC 48-03\ARC 48-03 tpt.doc s�-y Attachment 1 ONNP -o pRo LU R-1 w U O R- OCEAN'vRE CT R-1 A 00 LU 9 a l 0 R-1 R-1 yG W 9 a R-1 0 ti R-1 R-1 �P yG �2 50�2� GP�G VICINITY MAP ARC 48-03 N 1892 Oceanaire A s, s Attachment 2 Attachment 2 ra 1 ,<I Go Jul Q Attachment 2 i I 9 j y �gM1 I. I I� t , I , i I I Ij I 1^ j i ons � I a I Y Attachment 2 -----------7 g T ' i 77 I Lq FiEli I LS � n t I _ Attachment 2 I T I I � I II I 1 M ! I I I 11 r I I 1 I 1 I I c I A / ! i I � f e /j / I I i a i j U Ic 71f I I c i IA II O fl ' �M11 : I L ii C : I I L i I II , ' r 4 + Y C', r r o " 5- /o �� ►nlllnhllllllN��IUIU��II� � i J �� A rtyof sAn bAis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment 3 October 9, 2003 David Schmitt 3149 Hoop Pine Place Simi Valley, CA 93065 SUBJECT: ARC 48-03: 1892 Oceanaire Drive Review of a proposed garage conversion and replacement covered parking Dear Mr. Schmitt: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 6, 2003, denied your request, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not architecturally compatible, and is out-of-character, with the site and the surrounding neighborhood, where required parking is provided primarily by attached two-car garages. 2. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines which state that additions should respect the architectural style, detailing, scale and composition of the original building so they look integrated with the original structure, rather than a tacked-on afterthought. 3. Other options are available to the applicant to add living space to the house, which would not adversely affect neighborhood character and would preserve on-site space for parking. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. (Effective September 1, 2003, there will be a $100 appeal fee.) If you have questions, please contact Tyler Corey at (805) 781-7169. Sincerely, 1-0 092, 1? Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Veda Barr, Tre Etal, 1709 Carolyn Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Sr 11 FILE No.090 10/16 '34 15:08 1n:STATI0N 120 FAX: 10/16/4003 16:24 FAX 7609 .v3e07 GOLDEN PACIFICRE - RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 Ming Rae: $100.00' CHECK TO FOLLOW Pel- llats ROMYed TN MAZIi ol., 1 b3 .�,r •.,. � o GLY 0f � J�UII NIA M LUIS OBISPO "EM TO86en0M4 TTACHMENT 4 r APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLCTAON 9. APPELLANT INFORMATION DAVID_SCHMITT 3149 HOOP PINE PSACL, SIMI VALLEY Nadia - 1,1e1140 Addraes and ZIP Code 9 3 0 63 805-822-3100 818-238-3429 Phone Fox Repreaeritefivs's Name Melling Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax 8E'CTm Z B aiscT OF APPOAL 1. In accordance with the prooedures set forth In Tide 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Lula Obispo Municipal Cada(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: ARC)UTOCTURAL REVXBW COMMISSION (Name of Officer, Conunlltee or Commisslon deoielon being appealed) 2. The=the decision being appealed was rendered: OCTOBER 9l 2003 3. The application or project was entitled: ARC-48-03 1892 OCEAN,ATRB DRIVE REVIEW OF_ PROPOSED GARAGE CONVERSION 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. PAMELA RICCI an 10/06/03 (Staff Mernner'e Name afw Deper�tj (Dew) 6. Has We matter been the subject of a previous appeal? if to,when was 2 heard and by whom: NO WC7#0M 3'. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain spedflcatly1W actlonts you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include whet evidence you nave that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,I newasaW. Th/e km c6hMW4 on the other sioa. Pegs 1 of 3 FILE No.090 10/16 '34 15:07 TD:STATION 120 FAX: --� PAGE 1 10/16/2005 16:24 PAZ 7607.._J607 GOLDEN PACIFICRE X104 . ATTACHMENT 4 ReasonfbrAppee/oondnued SSE ATTACHED The .. L ...cul � , a .. 1• �.,.-y-in'.-I. .. .1 ?' 7� .e . ��•• ' ;" '+•r11. ' :r u C a� ni��!'jll l.r� :a '.., ,r r r r .r• �,•�r 'i ' „ r gr�n •'� �yo,..o�eryaDlas U� dnlbt 6 ptannhug a�6rwor r are^a� ,� p►', $)�, ,, ,,.� ' li S JC( Y .eli J'n.r + �Nik ;:-�'�a��a�99rd".dIyrri' toltin ' 1w1. LILa aslse •'!ti�cxlr to i' ,fj' ; , 1 . rr .y n.fa., .r 1 � r., '..� L. L '.re�n 11 LK 1Y".J,4 ,j"�r •a�J ' r 'T, Lri��:rpQnvv 7�'9 �r • .r.'. Aj V 7 T mahApp AnAGtlnw. InW `�. '/,�' r n•rl , � �,P,t r�Y, ,,•'7 yJ+.'.,m tir ed b;regt�fa ( -_W11"„del y� d ." ! r ,n �i r ••pdirleea�tfaa�+l>~'�illr� ><goKcar'it�i' . .•^ ` rw�de ol�aej�'•bp^(�1 ,",.. ;•�fipmr�l'��'�iwd"me9 .,r,�•tligy�yl �9P��d�al�r�I�rrai.�'�strbi��,�s+;r'+� e�d�rlo�'' ' '.��iY�, •1.5 �, f r ' � la..�Fff11�IWOfQ/B��', ',, J %��ii�i.•r;•�r rr•�. ' � � '�r.1,,Pm` " �Ik P �'�'pp41•� r�."' l,'I�''1 P1,1pP.,P�rN� '� '•,irk 1�'{' 'rl��1. �"'.��.��'1�1 �r •� �p�ea/'Iadt a�ddb� �` � � '�'•r w • y. '++n ,i ri`� r ,r4 � i � '•4• i 7. ` T ✓i ,•.� 17' , •'U• M 7 }Ir- o.1,J„Y�,'! y ^' L r.• w• � ,�/� , . I,'ww.`.. •r.r yrr' 7�• '' r 4; 1 'r r ndtura�l T ', .^ ";. 'n• is rr •�1r ..y '' ,•� '� •,�. ;` � t ' ons o lhi f6�:,� i�IPrgkT' L` �dtlhdri, ro6ovo 'OPPo ;bm I 1hmtCY�t�100'Uo njolfdPfrole oh ;edwhosy�bndy,r t ,�,4i.n `�' :d. r 1 ! '1 °'LIQ' 4. •r. •�,''� i , , rrr Thb Ibm Is hereby calendared for l_ GTX7 e: C!q►AttorneyCity AdminfamOve Officer Oepardrtont Head Advisory Body Chairperson-- O.mAts Si¢.tlmsry 1 D Ct�'/I/or* �R Paye 2 of 3 . 9/03 '�l\. „ .. ��'�n ► ms.µ— l�/��/1/1, FILE No.090 10/16 '34 1508 tD:STATION 120 FAX: PAGE 4 10/16/2003 16:24 PAZ 7607..4607 GOLDEN PACIPICRE'- f�02 ATTACHMENT 4 'h Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sedans: L 1.20.010 Title. F' 1.20.020 Right to appeal. G 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. ^: 1.2o.o40 Hearing-Notice. r 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Count's determination ftnel. 1.20.010 Title. This chapter shag be known as the°Appeals Procedure"br the city.(Prior code§ 1400) 1.20.020 Right to appeal. A. Except whom an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set florin In this code, any person w objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a liasnse, permit or endtiemmnt of any nature, the determination or issuance of which Is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any administrative decision made by any city official, If the approval, dental,suspension or revocation of such license,permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision Involves the axerclas of administrative discretion or personal judgment exerdaed under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal In writing to the council by }fling with the city Berk a written native of such appeal, sta>irtp the k epecfflc grounds for the appeal. 8. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city oftal under the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concerned. and where an appeals board Is empowered to consider kitemrstation and enforoament C questions,unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city oificdal under any of I the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision Is ministerial and thus does not Involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, whether the adminlstrstive decision Involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license,permit,erilltlement or any other administrative decision.(Ord. 1044§1, 1985:prior code;1401) 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. The appellant shall flim a notice of appeal with the dy dark within ten calendar days after the data upon which the administrative decision appealed from is made.in fhb event the last day of the Ming period faits on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day,and this rule shat) appy whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior oode $ 1402) 1.20.040 Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal In Its proper form,the oily clertc'shall place the matter on the council agenda Except In cages of ernemency, when the council may determine the matter Immediately, or where state law prescribes a dlffarent appeal process, the clerk shall set to matter tar hearing at the next reasonably available council meating, but In no event later than forty4 a calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk The city stark shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less then tfve business days prior to such hearing,unleas such notice Is waived In writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252 11 r 1994:prior code§1403) 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Coundl's determination final. Al such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specflled In the notice of appeal why the Radon appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from tftne to flim, and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (Prior code§1404) Papa a of 3 oma r1Lt jw.VOA 1wiv V` l"-"V AV-Vi JALN4 1GV rrTUL J s Attachment 4 Reasons liar Appeal: 1. The carport design was based on Staff's recommendations and direction from the ARC, and then denied without proposition for acceptance. 2. The city requires one u)vered parking space to take the place of a garage conversion and we provided two that architecturally matched the existing structure, again based on Staffs recommendations and direction. 3. The ARC members did not visit the project site nor did they drive the neighborhood, yet made their decision on the project, stating it... "will be detrimental to the health, safety and wen fare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not architecturally compatible, and is out-of-character, with the site and the surrounding neighborhood". 4. One ARC member stated that an attached two car garage in place of the carport would architecturally blend with the existing structure. The design would become a"courtyard design"which is a popular residential, architectural design. This would be a positive compromise and would be an aesthetic improvement in the neighborhood over the more prevalent carport construction. We agree with the negative impact of most carport designs in residential neighborhoods. S. We agreed with this member's suggested remedy and requested from the committee the opportunity to Seel;this alternative. The committee stated "they were finished with public comment"and would not listen to rhe proposed remedy. They stated we would need to appeal their decision. 6. We request the opportunity to complete this project with an integrated two car garage matching arch itecturaliy with the existing home. FILA- IVV.VVO 1VI IV w l"-"V IV-Vinj lV% 'LV .'+ .• nye, 10/16/2003 15:14 FAX 7303007 GOLDEN PACIFIC/ ®01 aty of Sm IUIS OWWO Palin Streae.can Luis Obleao,CA OU01-W49 Attachment 4 October 9,2003 David Schmitt 3149 Hoop Pine Place SW VOW,CA 93065 SUWECT: ARC 4803: 1892 Ocsanaire Drive RwAsw of a proposed gasps Conversion and rsplacemsrrt eavered perMnp Dear Mr.Sardn(tt: The Architecture! Review Commission, at Its meeting of October 6,2003, denied your request, be an the following findings: 1. The proposed garage conversion and replaoament parking will be deftnenlat to 1he health, satety and welfare of para"IMV or woridng at the site or In the aloinity because the prOGO (s real architecturally compatible, and Is out-ot-charectsr, with the eats and the auroundkV neighborhood,whom required parking is provided ptlmartlyy by attached two car garages. 2 The proposed garage conversion and replacement paddng are not consistent Wfih the Community Design Guidelines which state that additions should respect the architectural � original structure, rather aongurec4alm and than a tacked-On original building so they look Integrated with S. Other gftm are available to the applicant to add living space to the house, which would notadveraely affect neighborhood character and would preserve on-alts space for parldng. The doola;on of the Commiseion is final unless appealed to the City Councit within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an Appeal. (Etfecnve September 1. 2003,there will be a$100 appeal fee.) It you have Queagons, please contact Tyler Corey at(805)781-7169. Sincerely, &C46 Pamela Nod.AICP Sento Planner Community Development 5--7 l37 '71 -7.3 tx: Couflty of$LO Asaessore Offloe Vectis Barr.Ire Etal. 1709 Carolyn Drive,San Lute Obispo,CA.93405 �1 •n.nw. ..,wr AAAA..,.:.... .�rw,..�..,.........�_.._.L..0.r s.r....+.— ��....�._..«_. S-l p Attachment 5 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Excerpt— Item 5 only OCTOBER 6, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, David Smith, and Chairperson Chuck Stevenson Absent: Commissioner Jim Lopes Staff: Senior Planner Pamela Ricci PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. 1892 Oceanaire Drive. ARC 48-03; Review of a proposed garage conversion and replacement covered parking; R-1 zone; Dave Schmitt, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. She noted that staff is concerned about the utilization of garage conversions as a way to accommodate more floor area in homes and aesthetic impacts of replacement parking being located in front of houses. She stated the ARC should decide whether the project meets the intent of previous direction and whether the garage conversion is architecturally compatible with the site and the surrounding neighborhoods. Commr. Howard questioned the advantage of a carport versus a car parked in the driveway. Planner Ricci replied that there is a requirement on a R-1 zone that one parking space must be covered. Dave Schmitt, applicant, explained that when he purchased the house, he came to the City to find out what the procedure was for putting a carport in and was given a copy of the current carport details. When he came back with his plans, the details no longer applied because that detail had been phased out in July of 2002. He mentioned the planner explained that the current requirement was for a one-car carport, so he drew plans based on that. When he came back with those plans, he was told ARC review was required. Chairperson Stevenson questioned how the house would be used. Mr. Schmitt replied his daughter would live there with some roommates. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have thought about adding a second floor as an alternative. Mr. Schmitt explained that there is a major foundation issue as well as a cost issue. 17 Draft ARC Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5 Item 5-October 6,2003 Page 2 Commr. Wilhelm asked if there had been any consideration given to an enclosed carport. Mr. Schmitt replied that was his first plan, but it got changed. Commr. Smith felt the preferred solution would be to build a second story, and suggested that a steep roof with a shed dormer across would be more attractive and much easier. Mr. Schmitt responded that the code requirements for earthquakes have gotten more restrictive over the last 15 years. Commr. Howard asked if there was a garage when he purchased this house. Mr. Schmitt replied no, and explained that the garage had already been converted when he purchased it. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that if this is allowed in an R-1 zone, a precedent would be set for others in the neighborhood. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's, and Vice-Chair of RQN, felt that the proposed plans are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He presented photographs of some garage conversions in San Luis Obispo that were also not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He mentioned one thing that does not get addressed with carports is the storage, and noted that people tend to store things in the carports, which is very unattractive. Mr. Schmitt noted there are many old-style flat shed roofs in the neighborhood that do not look good, and felt he has come up with a compromise for it to work and look like part of the architecture. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson felt these are the kinds of cases that neighbors fear in neighborhoods because the garage. gets converted into a fifth bedroom for Cal Poly students to live in. He felt the Commission needs to recognize that there will be an additional vehicle, and on-site parking for that vehicle should be provided. He felt the applicant could add a second floor, which would allow more use in the driveway area for parking. He suggested that other alternatives be explored and noted he would have less concern if it were converted into living space. Commr. Wilhelm commented that he could not support this project as proposed. He felt a second story should be explored since the Building Code allows support of a floor on r1 Daft ARC Minutes Excerpt - Attachment 5 Item 5-October 6,2003 Page 3 the roof on a single-story footing. He expressed a concern on what kind of pattern this carport would set for the neighborhood. Commr. Smith reiterated the guidelines for garage conversions, and felt there is no way this could be designed to fit into the neighborhood. He suggested having a steep roof with a shed dormer to achieve the bedrooms and the ceiling height. He stated he could not support the project. Commr. Root commented that he could understand the position the applicant is in, but noted the ARC's task is to preserve the quality of the neighborhood and the community. He felt this is a design that he cannot support because of the parking issue, and the outside storage. He also suggested a stronger look at a second story before seriously considering a carport. Commr. Howard felt the project does not fit in the neighborhood, and concurred with the comments of the other commissioners. Vice-Chair Boudreau also concurred with all of the comments of the commission, and noted he cannot support the project. There was much discussion on garage conversions and the parking problems that force the cars out onto the street. Planner Ricci reiterated what alternatives are available for the ARC to take with this project. Mr. Schmitt explained that he has been dealing with staff for over a year, and has gone from a change in the plan from a one-car to a two-car carport because that was what he was told would be approved, but now it looks like it is not going to be approved at all. Chairperson Stevenson explained that often times the Commission may vary from the staff's recommendation, especially on a relatively new type of request requiring ARC review like a garage conversion, and felt there may have been some mixed signals. Mr. Schmitt replied that the mixed signal has cost him thousands of dollars because the garage conversion was illegally done when he purchased the house. He noted he has been working on this project for a year. Chairperson Stevenson reminded the applicant that he is being offered several options to explore. Commr. Wilhelm suggested a U-shaped footprint would be more acceptable in terms of the neighborhood context than an L-shaped footprint of a carport or an added on carport. He noted there are a number of alternatives that would respect the neighborhood and solve this equation. s'iy Draft ARC Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5 Item 5 -October 6, 2003 Page 4 Chairperson Stevenson moved to deny the proposed garage conversion, finding that: t) The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will be detrimental to the. health safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not architecturally compatible, and is out-of.-character, with the site and the surrounding neighborhood where required parking is provided primarily by attached two-car garages 2) The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines which state that additions should respect the architectural style detailing, scale and composition of the original building so they look integrated with the original structure, rather than a tacked-on afterthought and 3) Other options are available to the applicant to add living space to the house which would not adversely. affect neighborhood character and would preserve on-site space for parking. Seconded by Commr. Smith. Vice-Chair Boudreau commented that staff should be ready to communicate that when there is not a lot of room in front of the house that carports are not in-lieu of the parking. AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Smith, Wilhelm, Root, Howard, and Boudreau NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. Planner Ricci explained that this decision can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA.REPORT ITEM#5 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) MEETING DATE: October 6, 2003 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Develop" to, FILE NUMBER: ARC 48-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1892 Oceanaire Drive SUBJECT: Request to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a detached 2-car carport as replacement parking. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. BACKGROUND: Situation On April 16, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance 1412, which amended Section 2.48.170 of the Municipal Code expanding the jurisdiction of Architectural Review to include the conversion of any required parking space that is covered to another use and replacement parking is proposed. This code section specifically applies to Low Density Residential (R-1) zoned properties where a requirement exists for two parking spaces, one of which being covered. The purpose of the new regulations is to prevent the proliferation of carports or other covered parking structures that are out of character with the architecture of the existing dwelling and neighborhood. Garage conversion applications determined not architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood can and should be denied. In September of 2002, City staff was advised that people were living in an illegally converted garage at 1892 Oceanaire Drive. Based on research of City records, it was determined that the modifications to the structure require both Planning and building review, and a code enforcement case was opened for the subject property. On April 22, 2003, an application for Architectural Review was formally submitted to the City. Data Summary Address: 1892 Oceanaire Drive Applicant/Property Owner: David Schmitt Zoning: R-I (Low Density Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. 5 � \ S=z( ARC 48-03 (1892 Oceanan., Attachment 6 Page 2 Site Description The lot consists of approximately 9,620 square feet. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling, 2-car garage, ornamental landscaping and various other site improvements. A perennial creek with a good riparian corridor exists along the rear property line. The surrounding area is residential in nature. The area to the north is zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences; the area to the south is zoned R-1 and is developed with single- family residences; the area to the west across Oceainaire is zoned R-1 and is developed with single-family residences; the area to the east falls within County jurisdiction and is currently being used for agricultural crop production. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The project is a proposal to convert a 2-car side-loaded garage into two bedrooms, and construct a detached 2-car carport along the southerly side of the property as replacement covered parking. In addition, landscape planters and a pedestrian walkway are proposed to improve the overall appearance of the project. No exceptions to the City's Zoning Regulations are being requested. EVALUATION The role of the ARC in reviewing garage conversion requests is to determine design compatibility of the converted garage and new covered parking with the site and surrounding neighborhood. All new construction should blend with existing development and appear integral to the site. As previously stated, if the garage conversion cannot be found architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood then the request can and should be denied. Other options, such as constructing needed living space as an addition elsewhere on the property could be explored. On April 7, 2003, the ARC reviewed a garage conversion request with a similar site layout and floor plan at 1485 Gulf Street and continued consideration of the project to a date uncertain with specific direction provided to the applicant for project modifications (Attachment 2). Staff provided the applicant with a copy of this direction to help guide the design of the project to be consistent with ARC's expectations. The ARC's direction that applies to this project is summarized below (in italics), whether the project complies with the direction is also indicated. ➢ A walkway connecting the sidewalk to the front door should be constructed with concrete or other alternative paving. Plans show a 4-foot meandering concrete walkway leading from the sidewalk to the front door. The walkway is integral to the asphalt driveway for approximately 24-feet where a landscape planter is shown separating the new 2-car carport from the walkway. Staff Comment: It appears that additional pavement could be removed and more landscaping provided between the walkway and driveway since the width of the pavement should not be wider than the opening into the carport. ➢ Landscaping. The applicant is proposing to remove a 2-foot concrete apron located in front of the existing garage entry and install a landscape planter that connects to S I � S,ZZ ARC 48-03 (1892 Oceanaii;, Attachment 6 Page 3 existing landscaped areas. In addition, a 2-foot by 14-foot landscape planter is proposed adjacent to the 2-car carport. Staff Recommendation: Extend the 2-foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the 2-car carport out to the sidewalk. This will provide for a landscaped corridor to the front door that will screen and soften the structure and property as viewed from the public right-of-way. Also, as stated above, remove all additional asphalt paving that does not serve as access to the legal parking spaces and replace with additional landscape plantings. Provide a detailed landscape plan with the building permit application that identifies all new and existing landscaping. Include the species, number and size for all new plantings. ¢ » �,Ry c^�V � .�a c5}x�'.�.. � a'. -..� MR "� y f ��ir l�¢4• A �'R =w'.�`, Q �., ➢ Architectural details on the street yard elevation of the garage conversion. A decorative shed roof and window shelf connected by columns is existing and proposed to remain, providing some visual interest to the elevation. Two new matching windows have been installed that give the structure a balanced appearance as viewed from Oceanaire Drive. ➢ Provide the required replacement parking for the garage conversion in a two-car carport. Plans indicate a new 20-foot by 20-foot 2-car carport located on the southerly side of the property consistent with ARC's direction. The carport maintains the same roof pitch (5x12) as the existing garage, which provides some visual conformity from the street elevation. The structure is open on all sides and allows for views to be maintained too and from the adjacent bedroom. All colors and materials are proposed for the carport match the existing residence. Staff Comment: One option that the Commission may wish to explore would be to replace the carport's wood support posts with larger stucco columns accented with a rock base that match's the existing residence. This may help the new structure appear more integral to the site and neighborhood. 513 s 23 ARC 48-03 (1892 Oceanan_, Attachment 6 Page 4 w. .. r t r iL� .+rsrr ➢ Modify the wall of the existing garage to be converted to living space to eliminate all reminders of the garage including the main door. Project elevations indicate the garage door will be removed and a new window installed that matches the style and size of windows proposed on the building's northerly and westerly elevations. In addition, the garage entry apron will be removed and landscaped. All colors, siding, windows and trim are proposed to match the existing residence. ➢ Provide medium height screening to soften views of the carport. Medium height landscaping exists on the southerly side of the carport that will partially screen and soften views of the new structure. Conclusion: Staff remains concerned over the aesthetic qualities of carports placed in front of existing residences as a solution to expanded floor area needs. However, the proposed project generally complies with ARC's direction for a garage conversion request at a similarly developed site (ARC MI 7-03; 1485 Gulf) in the neighborhood. The ARC needs to decide whether the project meets the intent of its direction and if the garage conversion is architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood, or if other alternatives exist for an addition. Based on the project site plan, it appears there is adequate space in the rear yard area for an addition that would accomplish the applicant's goals without the need to convert the existing 2-car garage. Since the City has received few garage conversion applications and staff is seeking direction on architectural guidelines for garage conversions, if approved, the ARC would set a precedent as to the style and type of acceptable improvements. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or needed revisions to plans. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. ARC 48-03 (1892 Ocean ian:, Attachment 6 Page 5 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This item was distributed to various City departments and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, and comments are included as project conditions and code requirements where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval of the project, based on the following findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Findings: 1. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project conforms to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. As conditioned, the proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are architecturally compatible with the site and with structures on the adjacent properties and will not appear "tacked on" because all colors and materials will match the existing residence and new landscape planters and a pedestrian walkway are proposed for the Oceanaire Drive elevation. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. Conditions: I. Applicant shall construct project so as to substantially conform to plans submitted to the Community Development Department. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. All colors and materials proposed for the garage conversion and replacement parking shall match the existing residence, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Extend the 2-foot landscape strip adjacent to. the 2-car carport out to the sidewalk and remove all additional asphalt paving that does not serve as access to the legal parking spaces and replace with additional landscape plantings, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the building permit application that identifies all new and existing landscaping. Include the species, number and size for all new plantings, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. S �S ARC 48-03 (1892 Oceanan-, Attachment 6 Page 6 Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. The plans submitted for a building permit shall include the correct property line dimensions and shall show, label, and dimension all easements per the map for Tract 169. 2. Final building and foundation plans shall be designed with consideration for the existing utilities located in the easement adjacent to the proposed garage. Deepened footings may be required depending on the depth, location, and method of installation of the existing services. 3. The building plans shall include a complete site utility plan, grading plan, and drainage plan. Informational Note: 1. Per Section 17.93 of Zoning Regulations, no more than five (5) adults may reside in any dwelling without the approval of a.High Occupancy Use Permit. The purpose of this Use Permit requirement is to ensure compliance with performance standards, ensure compatibility of the use at particular locations and promote the quality of life in low- density residential neighborhoods. Attached: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: ARC Decision Letter Dated April 10, 2003 (1485 Gulf) Attachment 3: Reduced Scale Project Plans S � 0 5� Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONINUSSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1892 OCEANAIRE DRIVE (ARC 48-03). WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on September 11, 2002, for an illegally converted garage; and WHEREAS, the appellant, on April 22, 2003, submitted an application for Architectural Review; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on October 6, 2003, denied a request to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a 2-car carport as replacement covered parking; and WHEREAS, David Schmitt, on October 16, 2003, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2003, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Architectural Review Commission's action for application ARC 48-03; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the record of the Architectural Review Commission's hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Architectural Review application ARC 48-03, the Architectural Review Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not architecturally compatible, and is out of character, with the site and the surrounding neighborhood, where required parking is provided primarily by attached two-car garages. 2. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines which state that additions should respect the architectural style, detailing, scale and composition of the original building so they look integrated with the original structure, rather than a tacked-on afterthought. �'Z7 Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 3. Other options are available to the applicant to add living space to the house, which would not adversely affect neighborhood character and would preserve on-site space for parking. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES` ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18'' day of November, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit omey Jonathan Lowell Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION,THERBY APPROVING A GARAGE CONVERSION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1892 OCEANAIRE DRIVE (ARC 48-03). WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on September 11, 2002, for an illegally converted garage; and WHEREAS, the appellant, on April 22, 2003, submitted an application for Architectural Review; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on October 6, 2003, denied a request to convert a 2-car garage into living space and construct a 2-car carport as replacement covered parking; and WHEREAS, David Schmitt, on October 16, 2003, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2003, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Architectural Review Commission's action for application ARC 48-03; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the record of the Architectural Review Commission's hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Architectural Review application ARC 48-03, the Architectural Review Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project conforms to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. As conditioned, the proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are architecturally compatible with the site and with structures on the adjacent properties and will not appear "tacked on" because all colors and materials will match the existing residence and new landscape planters and a pedestrian walkway are proposed for the Oceanaire Drive elevation. Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 3. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld, and the garage conversion request approved, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. Conditions: 1. Applicant shall construct project so as to substantially conform to plans submitted to the Community Development Department. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. All colors and materials proposed for the garage conversion and replacement parking shall match the existing residence, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Extend the 2-foot landscape strip adjacent to the 2-car carport out to the sidewalk and remove all additional asphalt paving that does not serve as access to the legal parking spaces and replace with additional landscape plantings, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the building permit application that identifies all new and existing landscaping. Include the species, number and-size for all new plantings, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Code Requirements: 1. The plans submitted for a building permit shall include the correct property line dimensions and shall show, label, and dimension all easements per the map for Tract 169. 2. Final building and foundation plans shall be designed with consideration for the existing utilities located in the easement adjacent to the proposed garage. Deepened footings may be required depending on the depth, location, and method of installation of the existing services. 3. The building plans shall include a complete site utility plan, grading plan, and drainage plan. 5--3� Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`h day of November, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cky Attorney Jonathan Lowell RECEIVED Rilla Betz Nov. 17, 9831 & 2003 1908 Oceanaire Drive SLO CITY CLERK San.Luis Obispo, Calif. 93405 gCITYOF SAN LUIS OBISPOTyler Corey, contact for NOV 1 8 2003Architectural Review CommissionSan Luis Obispo, California 93405 UNITY DEVELOPMENT To Tyler Corey, or to whom it may concern, re File Number 48-03 (David Schmitt, 1892 Oceanaire Dr.): I am writing this in response to a notice I received about an application my neighbor applied for to convert his garage. The current garage has already been converted into living space for at least two persons. I understand the owner now wishes to build a new garage. I would not care to look at the wall of a new garage built right next to me. A carport is not much better. I have seen several of these conversions done in the neighborhood and do not feel they enhance the property value or neighborhood much. It only seems to be done to rent the property. As a neighborhood zoned single family housing, it seems that less and less of the homes are even occupied by families anymore, but being rented out to more and more people per house. This makes for increased traffic and congested on-street parking, and increased noise. I have lived in my current home for over twenty years, and I do not wish my property to decline in value due to many of these rentals and conversions. Thank you, sincerely, Rilla Betz ZCOUNCIL 2"CDD DIP rCAO ZrFIN DIR RED FILE OACAO e FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA ATTORNEY Z PW DIR 12 CLERKtORIG u'POLICE CHF DATEjYWq3 ITEM #�.� ❑ DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR 2'UTIL DIR �- SHR DIR I l V'0 V 17 2003 X1/0 ✓ /g, 2003 oFf& .,vc RED FILE /gq Z OC(far MEETING AGENDA � DATE �/YITEM #-f rev/ecJ A. ' L�CUNCIL ?'CDD DIF /+ /��j SAO FIN DIR CO�I�I I. / �c ��ORNEY I4RVE CHIEF / CLERK/ORIf3 ("i P06CE'CHF ❑ DE H DSEC OIR Il/ 6__ uyTiL.Din e I _ UHR DIR 'J � l� � y a� d W l ll 600h Under a� If frons a // � .pl � d�lllell�omw1` -�5u(-roundll: US . please not add 7'0 lfs �urf)wr d-�,cI ne acce`o f-lT ot�� O)gro u/T ti ls Cara e oaf i f has 6fan OCG led 5lhcz SAf 200 Z 7 �uol� blafdnt laW- ea �Ci� c5lnGere/ rGct� 1 OGC ,y Gr ah P� y Gip y ca �l vc � S/i�� l fs dasy -�o Vlet-,e) 60 ou -of- 1 �ara�ehvers� L/ Is �-r�fu/l f acs �o c��s usy � � around I` coour ori Plnecooc , RECEIVED - a J NOV 1 '777 2003 170 oc�r�u SLO CITY CLERK �C��_ S/f50 CYDNEY HOLCOMB _ 805 s94 oses 11/18/03 01:03pm P. 001 i RECEIVED ?,rARWOm N "u"LW Residents for Quality Neighborhoo ETING AGENDA TY CL SLO CIERK P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 DATE 10 03 ITEM.# LH6 ' FAXED TO: 781-7109 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council DATE: November 17, 2003 RE: ITEM # APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION`S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONVERT A 2-CAR GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE AND CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 2-CAR CARPORT AS REPLACEMENT PARKING, 1892 OCEANAIRE DRIVE (ARC 48-03) - MEETING DATE: 11-18-03 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, In April, 2002, we appeared before your council in support of an RQN initiated ordinance amendment package that included, among other things, a revision to MC§ 2.48.170. This revision expanded the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) purview to include review of the "covered parking replacement" requirement associated with an application to convert an existing garage into a living space. At that hearing, we registered our objection to the notion of garage conversions in general, and, in particular to the freestanding " four posts and a lid" carport model that staff had been recommending as the "acceptable alternative". We also noted, through a series of photographs, that these"tacky garage alternatives" were proliferating all over town.' The appeal before you demonstrates the difficulty associated with attempting to increase the number of bedrooms by relocating theexisting parking. The ARC has"flit the nail on the head" so to speak, by suggesting that the appropriate approach to this problem is to maintain the existing parking in the garage, and add an addition onto the house. We totally concur. It Is the only way to truly "maintain and enhance" the character of the neighborhood. We therefore urge you to: • Support the ARC findings as specified on Page 5-11 of the Agenda Report; • Adopt Resolution "A"to Deny the appeal; and, • Deny the application for a garage conversion. Respectfully submitted, iffCOUNCIL ZI CDD.DIP Cydney Holcomb ZCAO Z. FIN DIP Chairperson, RQN Jd ACAO Z'FIRE CHIEF ZATrORNEY ZPW DIP c: City Clerk 2r CLEPK/ORIG .e(POLICE CHF Tyler Corey, CDD Zr DEPT HEADS .Pr REC DIP 1�'_'� TIL DIP HR DIP