Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-2015 ARC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (Hanlon)11/13/15 Architectural Review Commission City Of San Luis Obispo NOV 16 2015 Re: Appeal of Director's Decision to Approve the Establishment of a Guest Quarters at 128 Chorro Street (APPL- 1974 -2015) Dear Commissioners, I have reviewed the staff report associate with APPL- 1974 -2015 and I would like to address what I believe are the outstanding issues. Staff's approval of the proposed project is fundamentally based on the determination that the structure was historically a single car garage and attached workshop. This conclusion is based in part on the layout titled "Floor Plan — Original Circa 1974" shown on Sheet A -1 of the proposed plans, which was requested by City Staff to be included with the submittal. Aside from the application itself, no documentation has been provided that indicates the structure was originally constructed as anything but a two -car garage. Indeed, the structure is exactly the dimensions and shape of a standard two -car garage. The Report further states "there is no definitive record stating that the structure has always been a single car garage." This is absolutely true. In fact, there is no definitive record stating the structure was ever a single car garage. The Report comments that, "To properly assess what changes would be allowed to the structure, documentation of the original layout is needed." I couldn't agree more. This should be recorded documentation, not a sketch prepared in 2015 by the Applicant. We do know the structure was built prior to 1974, that it was built with zero setback, and that it coincidently happens to be exactly the size and shape of a standard two -car garage. The City should require evidence when a structure is claimed to be anything other than what it physically appears to be, and what available information indicates: In this case, a two -car garage. The Staff Report also states that that their determination was based in part on the 1981 permit application which shows the illegal addition blocking access to a vehicle. There is no dispute that the structure was not functioning as a two -car garage in 1981. The question should be, "What was the structure's original use PRIOR to any illegal conversion ?" The existence of the illegal conversion in 1981 is not evidence that the original use was a single car garage and workshop. An illegal conversion at some point in history does not establish its original or intended use. Using this approach, illegal conversions would only need to provide evidence of the historical illegal use to support the permit application. Specific sources that provided evidence of the original use are identified in the Report. The Report states, "Staff determination came through review of previous documentation (County Assessor's records and past planning submittals) and physical evidence (driveway approach)." None of the referenced documentation even suggests the existence of a single car garage and workshop, as summarized below: Assessor's information - indicates "garage ". b. Planning Submittals 1981 permit Application — "Garage" City contributing property survey — "Garage" Staff interprets the current driveway configuration (width and alignment) as evidence that the structure could only have been a single car garage. However, even in the current configuration, both sides of the garage are accessible (once the illegal addition is removed). Furthermore, the entire frontage of the property on West Street was modified in 1975 and extended into the City ROW. The current configuration of the driveway cannot be interpreted as evidence that the structure never accommodated two cars. It is certainly possible that a structure the exact size and shape of a two -car garage was originally constructed as a single car garage and workshop, but there is far more evidence supporting an original two car garage that was converted to a single car garage and workshop at some point in history. Staff is making this important determination based on a possibility, not based on evidence. If contrary evidence exists, Staff should clearly identify the documentation that indicates a historical, single car garage and workshop (in a building with the exact dimensions of a two -car garage). Finally, Staff has determined that the proposed project meets parking requirements. A review of City Standards 2220 and 2250 indicates that the standard width for a stall with obstructions on both sides is 10.6 feet for a standard stall, and 10.0 feet for a compact stall. The proposed covered space is 8 %= feet wide, which is not useable as a parking space. A 2015 sketch prepared by the Applicant at the request of City Staff is not defensible evidence of historical dimensions of the covered parking space, and should not be the only evidence used to make this important determination. In summary, common sense and substantial record information show that the project is fundamentally a garage conversion, even if the original two -car garage was converted to a workshop, living space, or any other use at some point in history. The use of the structure in 1981 does not indicate its intended or original use. Accordingly, if it is a garage conversion, the proposed tandem parking is specifically prohibited by the Municipal Code. If it is determined the project is not a garage conversion, the proposed covered parking space does not meet parking standards and cannot accommodate a standard vehicle. At a minimum, the project should be required to meet the letter and intent of City parking standards. Staff appears to be remarkably willing to make discretionary determinations that favor approval of the Application, even when significant evidence to the contrary exists. However, there are two parties involved in this situation, and when discretional determinations are considered, the City should attempt to find an equitable resolution for all parties involved. In my August 7, 2015 letter to Planning Staff, I identified several discretionary conditions that would allow the project to move forward, and would alleviate my concerns about noise. At this time, not a single one of my noise or parking concerns has been addressed by the City. The Staff Report also did not address my concerns about Fire Code compliance, or storm runoff. Approval of the project as proposed will only ensure that ongoing issues associated with this structure continue to impact other property owner's rights and quality of life in perpetuity. 2 I urge the Commission to uphold the appeal and deny the project based on inconsistency with the Zoning Regulations and applicable City regulations, or to continue the project until a time that staff can develop additional permit conditions that address the concerns of both parties involved. Thank you, Jon Hanlon 814 West Street