Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1989, 1 - APPEAL OF USE PERMIT APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, (AND APPROVED ON APPEAL BY THE PLA p� pMEETING DATE city of San Luis OBISpo 4-4-89 ITEM NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smitl( 70 SUBJECT Appeal of use permit approved by Administrative Hearing Officer, (and approved on appeal by the Planning Commission) allowing a conforming addition to a nonconforming structure, for a house located on the south side of Mitchell Drive between Tenbrook and Meadow Streets. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the original staff recommendation and the actions of the Planning Commission and Hearing Officer and considering testimony, determine whether to approve or deny the appeal. DISCUSSION The Hearing Officer approved the use permit on January 20, 1989, allowing a two-story addition to a nonconforming house and allowing a five-foot setback where a seven-foot setback is required. The applicant appealed the decision, objecting to the condition of approval imposed by the Hearing Officer. On February 22, the Planning Commission considered the application on appeal, and approved the use permit.subject to revised conditions, and the applicant has appealed again. The previous approvals both required demolition of an existing garage, or conversion to a carport, to provide access to the new garage proposed at the rear of the addition. The applicants want to keep the one-car garage, but install another door at the rear of the garage to allow cars to drive through to the new garage. Use permit review is required because the proposal involves addition of more than 150 square feet to a nonconforming building and because of the sideyard setback reduction. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The project is exempt from environmental review requirements. No significant fiscal or other impacts are expected. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the council upholds the appeal, construction of the addition will be governed by any revised conditions they adopt. Otherwise, the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission will govern the addition's construction. °��i ►uII�III�IpAi��l city of san lues osispo ffMnZs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 479 Mitchell Drive Applicant/Appellant J. Erick and Jennifer A. N. Wand Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt. Site Description The site is developed with a small wood frame and stucco house. The site is surrounded by houses on individual lots. EVALUATION The applicants propose a two-story addition of approximately 1350 square feet (including two-car garage) at the back of the nonconforming 900 square-foot, one-story house. The existing house is nonconforming because of a four-foot sideyard setback where a five-foot setback is required by current standards. The front (existing) section of the house would be remodeled into a large living room and an office for the applicants' home occupation of graphic design. The applicants propose that access to the new two-car garage be through the existing one-car garage. The existing garage would be modified to have automatic doors in the front and the back. Planning Staff originally recommended demolition of the garage and breezeway, based on concerns with access and the unfinished appearance of the breezeway. The Hearing Officer approved the proposed addition subject to the attached findings and a condition requiring the garage to be converted.to a carport. The applicants appealed, indicating that they preferred doors on the existing garage, furnishing greater privacy and security. The Planning Commission also approved the use permit, but with somewhat different conditions: the front wall and roof of the existing garage could remain as part of the carport conversion, but the side wall would have to be eliminated. They also required a covenant to provide permanent unobstructed access to the new garage. The Hearing Officer and Planning Commissioners noted concerns that the inconvenience of the proposed garage access could discourage use of off-street parking spaces, and that the garages (particularly the rear one) might be converted to storage or other uses if they were not convenient for parking. At the previous hearings, the applicants noted their concern with the appearance of the house, and with privacy and safety for their backyard area, in objecting to the condition of approval. They have indicated in discussions with staff that the Planning Commission conditions would be acceptable if the side wall of the garage were allowed to stay (in other words, only the rear of the garage would be open). ` a , city of san Luis osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 Throughout the prior review process, staff, the Hearing Officer, and the Planning Commission have concurred that the setback reduction for the addition is minor and will have no significant impact on solar access and this aspect of the project has been routinely approved at both levels. PREVIOUS REVIEW At the previous hearings, the attached petition in support of the project was submitted. No testimony opposed to the project was approved; minutes are attached. ALTERNATIVES The council may approve the appeal; in doing so, the council may approve or deny the setback reduction and may adopt modified conditions of approval. The council may also deny or continue the appeal. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the original staff recommendation and the actions of the Planning Commission and Hearing Officer and considering testimony, determine whether to approve or deny the appeal. Attachments: Draft Resolutions Denying Appeal Upholding Appeal Vicinity Map Site Plan Letter of Appeal Planning Commission Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Hearing Officer's Action Administrative Hearing Minutes Applicant's Letter Petition of Support gts3:a15588cc I RESOLUTION NO. (198 SERIES) C � RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND A SIDEYARD REDUCTION AT 479 MITCHELL DRIVE (A 155-88) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Use Permit Application A 155-88 at a public hearing conducted on January 20, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action at a public hearing conducted February 22, 1989, and determined to modify the conditions of approval adopted by the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council further modify the conditions of approval of the use permit; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and takes an action to approve Use Permit A 103-88, thereby allowing a conforming addition to a.nonconf orming building and a reduction of the required sideyard setback from 7 feet to 5 feet along the west property line for a house at 479 Mitchell Drive, as approved by the Planning Commission, based on the following findings and conditions: SECTION 1. Findings: 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The project, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and. will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed project conforms to the general plan and substantially meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Conditions: 1. Applicant shall remove existing garage and breezeway enclosures, or convert the garage to a carport with the roof and front wall of the existing structure to remain. Resolution No. (1989 Series) !� Use Permit A155-88 Page 2 2. Applicant shall submit a covenant providing for perpetual unobstructed access through the carport to the required parking spaces. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, the covenant shall be recorded. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of 1989. _ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A inistrative Officer City Attorne Community Development Director GRESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND A SIDEYARD REDUCTION AT 479 MITCHELL DRIVE (A 155-88) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Use Permit Application A 155-88 at a public hearing conducted on January 20, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action at a public hearing conducted February 22, 1989, and determined to modify the conditions of approval adopted by the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council further modify the conditions of approval of the use permit; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and takes an action to approve Use Permit A 103-88, thereby allowing a conforming addition to a nonconforming building and a reduction of the required sideyard setback from 7 feet to 5 feet along the west property line for a house at 479 Mitchell Drive, subject to the following modified findings and conditions: SECTION 1. Findings: 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The project, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed project conforms to the general plan and substantially meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Conditions: 1. Applicant shall install garage doors with automatic openers in both the front and rear of the existing garage. Resolution No. (1989 Series) Use Permit A155-88 Page 2 I Applicant shall submit a covenant providing for perpetual unobstructed access through the carport to the required parking spaces. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, the covenant shall be recorded. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of 1989. i 1 Mayor J ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Ad inistrative Officer Cwt City Attorney Community Development Director �_i O o :�-44 -� 0 � Q OOeI .O O OuO O pHOW-14d -VIVID Q 0 00SQ aO OOnO ; W . Oa xp 0 : 10 CITY O 3 O - _ W a0 g p „ 10 a I J3v( D__ _ pC rCV o1 d' aO o � p � o ! 0 � -- 0 D IL 04 � 0p © 5 O ° r � a �° . O = 'J-s X1001=11 N9 L r 0 tLSp v .Lp 0 : p ...y 0 O 0 O 010 0 ; 0 O O aw - - — �.. J N 0 w O W f„L J . Or u O 99L W 1/\r O O O O O O .p : : O i z 0 u z O �o p: W ' 0 i pr 2 - o� - o YM , -- -- - 0, p — $0O 1 _a�.aII OO 0 L7 OsO� O{ O _ 3U.LS n MOOWBl W t O N Gxs wa Lo6L a, un caz v•t.ne Eli3 Os tp i Q p pip O O 0 t I 0 a Mitchell Drive I idewa k Sidewalk Driveway 20' ' Driveway i I incline I I I a' - - - 31' - - 4 I I I I I 471 Mitchell 479 Mitchell House House 32'-6" I I Garage 3 fo t drop to I Drive- out property frcrr driveway I thru I I —24'-6" .:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Owner: Garage s Two-story Keith MillerDouble Addition - - 4588 Davenport Creek Roa Deep 35' - San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 6 — I �Ctlll ." ".; :..• 14._ :.:.:...... . . . . . (805) 543-2293 I :...:...:...:...:... ..:...:...:...:...:...:...:..:...... 5 20� I :.....:...... €' 25�'s: : : : ;._;........_......_ __ .._.._................ I _ .._............:..T:T.......:..:...:.. :.:.:.:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:. Revised garage _' ' and driveway _�................. ....... ... _._._..__.... :._:._:...:...:..:...:.. - - -- I 3' Rise to level area I I I I I I I I — — — — — -501- Property Lines I — — — 12.875' — — — Existing House Picture Window Front 5' I Door I — I Living Room 2' - Dining ' - Dining Room 1 Kitchen g,5' Kitchen Door — I 8' — — 33.125' Wall Heater i Closet Closet I I I I [[ I I Closet CD One-car I 1 I I I Bathroom 0 �E Garage 22.125' 42 Master Bedroom I Bedroom F I ti] w/c - . . It 3.5' — — — — — — — — 30.625' — — — — — — — I 11.5' — — — Ho I Existing House Living Room ' Office C►oset Dining/Family Drive-thruGarage Room Bath Office #3 Refrig Pantry 1 16.75' 7.1425' I 7.375' 12.25- 1 Kftcl en 6.375' e I tov DW 0 I 24' 32.875' I First Floor Two-Car Garage I Addition I I -1 � I I I 479 Mitchell Dr. I J. Erick and 1— — — — — las- Jennifer A.N. Wand — — — — — — — II _ 1 -- _ 24.25' Kitchen 12.625' 4.125' Changes to plans submitted with use permit aplication 20• - - Two-car 16. Garage l Wall 4.125'I 16.4436' 6' 14• Staircase height at garage/kitchen wall i Bathroom 7.25' 7.375' 12.625' 16.875' Master Bedroom 5' �hA�a — 16.3751- 7.3 5 6.3757.375' 6.875' : .t Laundry 3.625' Room 8.25' Revised upstairs dimensions 4' Bathroom due to garage size change Downstairs Bedroom Bedroom 12.625' 12.625' 9.875' �. 9 9.875' .875' H�i,tiVt✓ J. Erick Wand ans Jennifer A.N. Wand 469 Mitchell Dr. MAR 3 1989 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)549-0556 March 3, 1989 Re: Use Permit #155-88 Mike MultariI, Director Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Dear. Mike, We would like to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to convert our existing garage to a carport with the roof, front and partial side wall. Please include us in the next City Council meeting for this appeal.. Sincerely., Erick and Jennifer Wand �.i SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4083-89 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California on February 22, 1989, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. A 155-88 by J. Erick Wand, applicant. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: To allow a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 479 Mitchell .Street GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Low-density Residential PRESENT ZONE: R-1 WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The project, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The proposed project conforms to the general plan and substantially meets zoning ordinance requirements. j-�S Resolution No. 4083-89 Use Permit A155-89 479 Mitchell Street 4 . The proposed project is exempt from environmental review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 155-88 be amended subject to the following conditions: *l. Applicant shall remove existing garage and breezeway enclosures, or convert the garage to a carport with the roof and front wall of the existing structure to remain. **2 . Applicant shall submit a covenant providing for perpetual unobstructed access through the carport to the required parking spaces. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, the covenant shall be recorded.. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, upon the motion of Commr. Duerk, seconded by Commr. Crotser, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Duerk, Crotser, Gerety, Hainline, Kourakis NOES: Commrs. Roalman, Schmidt ABSENT: None Michael Multari, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: February 22, 1989 *Denotes amended condition **Denotes added condition P. 0 - Minutes PetIruary 22 , 1989 ` Page 5 . Rob Rossi , applicant/appellant , discussed the wall deterioration and the project proposal . He stated the setback conditions were acceptable . i Patrick Gerety , 793 Buchonj, was concerned about building a garage as means of wall repair and preferred to see other alternatives . He felt this was a grant of special privilegel, and felt the plans were incomplete in terms of top construction . He did not feel public parking spaces should be lost . He proposed the entire height of wall be lowered to approximately 4 feet and to use the on- site stone in the grading process . He asked that the variance be denied . Jack Gates , 1558 Laurel Lane , was concerned with - the traffic patterns and vehicles backing up onto ChUdrro Street , as well as with directional entry and turning patterns . Mr . Rossi reiterated that the project would deliver benefits to the site while maximizing the value of expenses . He felt the 4-way stop signs mitigated traffic hazards . ' Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing . i Commr . Crotser was concerned with access and was against the loss of parking for an unnecessary uses,. He could not make finding 2 . Commr . Roalman moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer ' s action . Commr . Crotser seconded the mot',ion . VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Crotser , Schmidt and Kourakis . NOES - Commrs . Duerk and Hainline . ABSENT - Commr . Gerety ! The motion passes . Item 7 . Public Hea��riy� Use Permit A155-88 . Appeal of Hearing Officer ' s action Con3itionaTT approving request allowing a conforming addition to a non-conforming struction ; 479 Mitchell Street ; J . Erick Wand , applicant and appellant . ------- - - ----------- ----- --- ---- -- - --- --- -- -------- -- - ---- - - -- - - - -- - - ---- - - Commr . Gerety rejoined the meeting . Greg Smith presented the staff report and recommended denial of the appeal Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing . RECEIVED MAR 2 `= 1989 CITYCLERK /' / SANLUISOBIS70.CA P . Minutes February 22 , 1989 Page 6 .. Erick Wand , 479 Mitchell , applicant/appellant., discussed the project and. the propose.d . covenant . The commission discussed the ordinance and concerns about enforcement of uses . Jennifer Wand , 479 Mitchell , stated she appreciated the detail and explanation of the ordinance and its enforcement intention . Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing . Commr . Schmidt felt the proposal and covenant was acceptable . Chairperson Kourakis moved to uphold the Hearing Officer ' s action . Commr . Gerety seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Gerety and Roalman . NOES Commrs . Crotser , Duerk , Hainline , and Schmidt . ABSENT - None. The motion fails.. Commr . Duerk moved to uphold the appeal in part , subject to amending condition 1 and adding condition 2 regarding a covenant. Commr. Crotser seconded the motion . ,VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Duerk , Crotser , Gerety , ' Hainline , and Kourakis . NOES - Commrs . Roalman and Schmidt . ABSENT - None . The motion. passes . COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Michael Multari reviewed recent council actions and gave commission previews for upcoming meetings . i Commr . Schmidt di'scssed housing conversions . The meeting adjourned at Respectfully submitted , Lisa Woske Recording Secretary `/U �Iil�lll I�llllll�II��I�����l �Ipllllllill city of SAn PIIS OBISPO ;,,,-D AJ 18 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 January 23, 1989 J. Erick Land Jennifer Wand 479 Mitchell Drive - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 155-88 47.9 Mitchell Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wand: On Friday, January 20, 1989, I conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure, at the subject location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions_ : Findings 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or. working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The project, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed project conforms to the general plan and substantially meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review. Condition 1. Applicant shall remove existing garage and breezeway enclosures. Existing garage roof may remain, to become a carport. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not established within one year of the date of approval or such longer ^ time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit } shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58. 070.D. for possible, renewal. /_/ Page 2 If you have any questions, please call Greg Smith at 549-71.74 ., Sincerely, Ren Bruce Hearing Officer drs /�010 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY JANUARY 20, 1989 479 Mitchell Drive. Use Permit Appl. A 155-88 ; Request to allow a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure; R-1 zone; J. Erick and Jennifer Wand, applicants. Greg Smith presented the staff report, stating that the applicant has submitted revised plans which now conform to the minimum requirements for the parking and driveway standards. He noted that the applicant also submitted. a petition from neighbors indicating they have no objections to the continued operation of the home occupation at the premises and that they do not object to 375 square feet of the building to be used for that home occupation. Mr. Smith said staff is recommending approval based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Mr. Smith indicated proposed condition 1 would address the concern raised by staff at the previous hearing which is the inconvenience of the existing garage, proposed to remain as a drive_through. It would be completely enclosed. Staff recommended that the garage and breezeway be removed to provide clear access to the proposed new two-car garage. Proposed condition 2 would require a review hearing of the home occupation on the premises, if valid complaints are received. The public hearing was opened. Erick Wand, applicant, said he concurred with staff regarding the home occupation and the review hearing. However, he did not agree with the removal of the garage and breezeway. He said his intent is not to change the appearance of the house; he wants to add to the back side of the house but not impact the neighborhood aesthetics, and noted that the existing garage would not affect the mobility or access to the new two-garage in the back, but would keep the site looking the same and provide benefits for the home. Ken Bruce asked what Mr. Wand's feelings would be if the roof remained and the garage were made into a carport, thus retaining the character of the site. Mr. Wand asked if part of staff's concern is that parking would occur in the existing garage. Ken Bruce felt that was part of staff's concern. Jennifer Wand said they have no intention of parking in the existing garage; the reason they want to make it drive-through is that sono one else will park in there either. She further stated the garage helps keep the back yard private, secluded, secure and safe. She felt that if it is opened up, the children playing in the back yard will not be afforded the seclusion and safety that now exists. She explained that the driveway is on an incline; if a child's ball goes down the driveway, the ball, and possibly the child, will go into the street. The garage keeps the children out of the street. An option Page 2 would be to install a gate, but then each person would have to get out of their car, open the gate, move the car, get back out of the car to close the gate, then park the car - an extreme inconvenience.. Ken Bruce commented that this identical situation has come up before in the city, for instance the property located on the 1400 block of Marsh Street owned by Martin Polin. Initially, he said, the city found that if the garage was not converted to a carport and remained with double doors, it was not used. Mr. Bruce explained that they (the current owners) may use it as proposed, but if the property is sold, the new owners may not use it, and parking would occur in the front yard. The city allowed, at the Marsh Street property, the roof to remain to act as a carport. Mr. Bruce said he understands the argument in terms of the back yard privacy, but felt there are other ways to accomplish this, such as fencing or a gate, which could be electric opening. Jennifer Wand responded that by putting up a gate or fence, it would eliminate the easy access to the back.. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce explained that based on past experience, having a drive- through garage usually does not work, and based on that past experience, would have difficulty approving the drive-through garage. Ken Bruce approved the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: Findings 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare ofpersons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The project, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The proposed project conforms to the general plan and substantially meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review. Condition 1. Applicant shall remove existing garage and breezeway enclosures. Existing garage roof may remain, to become a carport. Ken Bruce explained that this decision could be appealed to the C Planning Commission within ten days of' the action, by submitting a letter to the Community Development. Department stating the reasons for the appeal, and any person aggrieved by the decision can appeal the decision. J. Erick and Jennifer A.N. Wand -- 479 Mitchell Drive 1 Son Luis Obispo, California January 18, 1989 Ken Bruce, Zoning Hearing Officer City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Planning Department Re: Use Permit Application A 155-88; Request to allow a conforming addition to a non- conforming structure; R-1 zone, continued from January 6, 1989. Dear Mr. Bruce, Our application requested a 5' setback limit instead of 7'. The prevailing staff consensus is to allow this setback but they have put three conditions on its approval. We understand these to be: 1. Increase garage width and/or driveway backup to meet city standards. This would be accomplished with a 21' clear garage opening width or 24 1/2' driveway backup. 2 No more than 300 sq. ft. of office space allowed. 3. Eliminate the drive-thru garage. To address #1.: The only way to allow a 24 1/2' driveway backup would require the 5' setback. This would be as follows. 5' setback; 20' deep garage 25' driveway, which adds up to 50', the width of our lot. The 21' garage opening cannot be accomplished in an economical manner. The plans have been adjusted to allow for a 20' garage depth instead of the previously proposed 24' depth. To address #2.: Our plans to add onto our house came about because I moved home from an outside position to assist my husband in our business. Our intention is to separate our office from our living quarters and increase our office space is to allow more room for my husband and myself. We do not anticipate an increase in our client activity. Enclosed please find a petition signed by our neighbors. As you see they have no problems with our business in our home and agree that 375 sq. ft. is not too /-� 3 �- too large for an office. Since we are not building this space, but using existing rooms, it would be difficult to change the size.. To address#3.: Our intention has been to keep our house and the addition in the some style as it was built in the 50's, similar to the other houses inour neighborhood. Our design revealed that any alteration to the front of the house would change the overall look, and not for the better. We understand-the two car off-street parking we desire will necessitate a change in the use of our existing garage. To accomplish this without visually changing the overall look of the house, we decided a drive-thru access to the new two-car garage through the existing garage structure was the only solution. This will be obtained with two garage doors and electric openers for easy direct access to the new two-car garage. Besides being aesthetically pleasing from the front of the house, the existing structure will provide-a.secluded and safe backyard area for our family and should remain. We appreciate the city's concerns and hope this clarifies our intentions and reasons for the requested use permit for a 5' setback. Thank you for your time and consideration. C: Sincerely, Jennife A.N. Wand _ J We, the undersigned neighbors of J. Erick and Jennifer A.N. Wand, of 479 Mitchell Dr., San Luis Obispo, CA, do not have any objections to their proposed home remodeling/addition. We are aware of, or have been informed of, the home occupancy permit allowing them to run the business Graphics by Erick out of their home. This use of their home as a business has not infringed upon my/our privacy, parking or in any other way been a problem. We are also aware that they came to us for these signatures so they can have 375 square feet of office space instead of the 300 square feet the city of San Luis Obispo Planning Department would approve. o7j` /� 1/7/ All-X:411 SL D Name Address 4/�-/ 42: Name A ( � Address T Name Address L7 Name Address N/ e Address � Q 0R-Q/%4� +?-;; M i e—rt e.ti -0 c2 Narneu Address -Z' , �� jam. o12 N e Address Name Address Name Address