Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1989, 1 - USE PERMIT #A155-88 '4EE7ING AGENDA DA TIE f- - P Denctes action by Leztd Perse:; Respond by: J. Erick and Jennifer A.N. Wand Cy+�nmci1 479 Mitchell Dr. ✓cno San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Ia�city Atty. Y� lerk-orig. A-XdL ri441 ❑ r. r. April 1, 1989 O P GE Ron Dunin City of San Luis Obispo 8100 Palm St. San Luis Obippo,CA 93401 Re: Use Permit#A 155-88 Dear Mayor Dunin, This is regarding the above use permit. We are appealing a condition to this permit issued by the Planning Commission. You should have been informed by the planning staff of the past developments concerning our appeal. There will be several letters and decisions in your packet. We would like to give you a run down from our point of view. This all started back in December 1988 when we applied for a use permit to remodel our home. Our 1950's house has four foot setbacks so it is considered a nonconforming structure. The addition is a two story structure with a seven foot setback required and we requested a five foot setback. Hence the use permit. The Zoning Board's hearing on January 6, 1989 continued our item with three conditions to January 20, 1989. The setback request was never a problem. We complied with two of those conditions. The third was to tear down our existing one car garage. We were told the reasons for tearing it down were: I. The garage would be a hinderence to the access of the new gorage. 2. The neighborhood does not support three car garages. I We would park in the old garage and not drive through to the new one. 4. That we would convert the old garage into an enclosed space and not be able to drive through to the new garage. RECEIVED AFR 31989 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA These were the reasons given to us in the above order over two months by various people conected with the City of San Luis Obispo. We have tried to address each one as they were presented first with Greg Smith, Ken Bruce and then the Planning Commission. We have many reasons for not tearing the garage down. Enclosed please find an outline of those reasons. We would like to drive through it to a new two car garage. We have been able to persuade the hearing officer Ken Bruce and the Planning Commission to allow parts of the garage to remain. Ken Bruce gave us the roof to make a carport. The Planning Commission gave us the roof, front wall and door, and part of the side wall. We are asking you to allow our garage/drive-thru structure to stay intact and allow us to install a second garage door in the back wall. To allow easy access through the structure we will install two garage door openers. The Planning Commission has told us they have trouble with city residents converting their garages into other uses and not using them as garages. We assure you this is not and will never be the case with us. We want to get to our new two-car garage. To do anything other than drive through this structure will not benefit us. We also do not feel others actions should be used against us. We have stated we will have a covenant drawn up to have the structure torn down if we ever decide to sell and the buyer does not want to use the structure in the same manner we have prescribed. We have done everything we know how to satisfy the City of San Luis Obispo, its employees and the commissioners that we are sincere in our desire to keep the "drive-thru structure" intact and always use it to our and not against the city's benefit. The Planning Commission agreed with us enough to allow a "facade" of a garage to remain, now we are asking you to allow the structure to stay intact and not tear it apart just to satisfy a fear about a conversion that will never happen. Sincerely J. Erick and Jennifer A.N. Wand Reasons for keeping the existing garage as a drive-thru access structure: i 1• The aesthetic appearance of the house will change a• We want the addition to look as if built with the original house in the 50's b. We want our house to remain looking like the rest of the neighborhood 2• We have taken into account the ease of access to the new two-car garage a. We will install two garage doors at each end b. We will install two electric garage door openers C. We will not park in the drive-thru access structure . i i 3. The existing garage structure provides other necessities a. Privacy/seclusion for our backyard area b. Safety and security for our family C. Wind break for our backyard area I 4. If the existing garage structure is demolished C. We will have to install a gate to provide the privacy,safety and security we desire for our family b. A gate will not provide us with an easy access like the electric garage door openers will 5. Staff's concern with the existing garage as a drive-thru access structure a. That we would not use it correctly 1• As we have stated our intended use is as a drive-thru access structure to the new two-car garage which will provide the two off-street parking spaces as required 2• We do not want to block this access by parking in it or using floor space for storage b. That future owners of the property would not use the access structure "correctly" 1• We propose to have a covenant drawn up 2. This covenant will provide for demolishing the drive-thru access structure if future owners do not want to use it as we intended C. The condition requiring the garage to be converted to a carport does not make sense 1• Carports are to be parked under 2• We do not want to park in this area j 3. We desire to park in the new two-car garage 4. Staffhb hbbb is concerned that we will park in the existing garage instead of the new two-car garage,so why give us a carport? 5. If willing to give us the carport,why not allow the existing garage to remain as a drive-thru access structure?