The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-16-2015 ARC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (Garcia)November 6, 2015 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) City of San Luis Obispo Antonio and Holly Garcia 128 Chorro St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Re: Response to Appeal to ARC by Mr. Jon Hanlon (MJH) dated 917115. RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOV 13 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MJH, a next door neighbor, is the sole appealer to the work of City Planning staff and their approval of our plans to build a guest quarters addition to a nonconforming structure. Plans include: (1) demolishing an unpermitted addition to the original 1928 garage; (2) bring the structure to code compliance and restore it to original uses — car parking, storage, shop, etc. (3) remodel that portion of same used by previous owner as a multipurpose room (storage, shop, painting) and by us (storage, a sunroom for wintering plants, bedroom); and (4) add a small extension to (3) so the combination of (3) and (4) provides a 180 sq. ft. guest quarters which will more closely reflect the architectural style/detail of the house. Our house is a small two bedroom, one bath home and we would like additional space for visiting family and friends, not for renters. MJH raises a number of issues in support of his objections to this improvement. For the sake of clarity and brevity we'll limit our responses to his comments/opinions relevant to this project. We will counter where we see he is mistaken. Our advantage: we bought this home in 1974 and know its history. Our responses will be in the order they appear in his Appeal. The original structure built legally in 1928 is simply identified as a 'garage'. It had (still does) the identical building materials as the house (knob and tube wiring, lath, plaster and finish popular in the 20's and 30's). Under one roof it had two distinct areas separated by a wall and each had its own south facing entry. The garage (west side area) entry was through a single wood carriage door (type commonly used before the advent of overhead garage doors) while the east side area (the side closest to MJH's property) had a floor two inches lower than the garage area, had its entry through a standard exterior house door and was used for several purposes (storage, shop, painting, tool room) — not as a car parking space. Also, the floor of the garage side is of one piece with the driveway which extends to the West St. pavement. Both are of identical materials and have the same finish. Their similar surface condition (cracks, weathering, wear) speak to their age. The fact that the house was among the first built in the Anholm Addition indicates that the driveway and garage are older than the West St. sidewalk and the curb at the comer (West and Chorro Sts.) which had a'WPA 1935° stamp imbedded in its surface until the City replaced the comer with a ramp to comply with the ADA. The garage always was a one car garage. MJH's "Storm Runoff" paragraph on page 4 is especially surprising in its inaccuracies. The "zero set bake that MJH refers to repeatedly is false. After the City Enforcement Action we had our property surveyed. The building is not parallel to the property line. The setback ranges from just over V (NE) comer to 3' or more at the (SE) comer of the original structure. Secondly, the garage has always had rain gutters and no rainwater has been "sheeting" onto his property. The entire roof does not drain onto his property. The west side of the roof drains on the west side (not near his property) and flows south down our driveway. One east side downspout drains south to the West St. sidewalk via a pipe which runs on both properties. MJH suggested this solution many years ago when our gutter downspout and drainage pipe separated during a storm. Our property elevation is higher than his and with our subsoil's heavy clay composition there can be seepage to his property in heavy rains just as we get from a northern neighbor whose home is further up the slope of the hill we all live on. Parking EL blems and "rented the illegal conversion..." In the 14 years MJH has resided next door we have not rented the "illegal conversion to various residents ". In 2005 we had a single house sitter stay on the property (no rent) as we were gone for an extended period of time. In the spring of 2014 close friends of ours, a mother and two sons, aged 7 and 5 were guests (no rent) for two months while her husband looked for/found/bought a home. Shortly after this he filed his Appeal. Now, in our `empty nester stage there is more available parking, less residential density and less general disturbance since our three children and Holly's father no longer live with us. MJH's comment regarding our spending time outside the country is true but this frees up 60 +linear feet of street parking on West St. where we usually park our two vehicles. We remove our car from its usual parking place on the street and park it on our property. We travel in our pickup. Contrary to his claims this increases available parking, diminishes "residential density" and "disturbances" that are his issues. Also, our memory differs from his in that over the years we have resolved his issues to his satisfaction on the few occasions he's made them known to us. That is until June 2014. Granted, "Property is the subject of an Enforcement Action ". Yes, we "illegally converted the garage" over 35 years ago and turned a greenhouse into an "ungermitted addition to the secondary structure..." Now we are in the process of correcting this infraction with help from proper city departments, licensed architects, structural engineers and a building contractor. Noise issue: We live at the corner of Chorro and West Sts. We know noise. Frequently we hear MJH's two dogs bark when he and his wife are gone. Dogs are territorial that's what they do. We hear their 1 year old cry for periods of time. This is more worrisome than bothersome, but to us these are routine neighborhood noises. We hear our neighbors to the north and we know they hear us. His complaint about noise is the only complaint we have ever had in 40 years. If the "noise" is as intolerable as he claims, then why hasn't he reported it to the proper authority? There are no such reports on file for us. To clarify our building plans as they relate to —noise and windows, there will be no windows which open facing MJH's property (east). However, we will have one window facing SE, 5'+ from the property line. And we will have two operable skylights for ventilation more than 5' away from his property; and if allowed and structurally feasible, we would place one or both on the west facing roof away from his home (a suggestion he made in his Appeal). Unfortunately at a time when we are moving to do right by the City and neighbors, (MJH in particular) he chooses to unload misinformation and wrong conclusions so the end result is to his satisfaction. As a neighbor and an engineer we have always respected and regarded him well, but key points of his information are misleading and completely incorrect. We are grateful for your time and efforts in the review of this Appeal and hope your conclusions will concur with the City Planning Department. Our biggest regret is that this matter has created such a maelstrom for two neighbors who previously got along and thereby making it necessary to involve you folks as well. Sincerely, Antonio Garcia Holly Garcia Community Development Department Date: )I - L;Lr .5' Distribute ;by: , To: Q Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners 0 CHC Committee Members [� Asst. City Attorney Tyler Gorey Xzandrea Fowler P.LT1 i ri Original to: C 1, �' L �r