Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1998, 3 - OTHER 38-98: APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT, TOM WEDDLE, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A REQUEST TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GARAGE CONVERSION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF GEORGE STREET, BETWEEN HE 8-/8- councit j acEnba REpoin CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO d FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PR SUBJECT: Other 38-98: Appeal by the applicant, Tom Weddle, of the Planning Commission's action denying a request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located on the southeast side of George Street, between Henry & Ruth Streets(1121 George Street). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to deny the request, based on findings,and with a condition. DISCUSSION Situation The applicant converted an existing garage into living area at 1121 George Street. A complaint from a neighbor initiated an enforcement action, which was followed by plans being submitted by the applicant to legitimize the work that had been done. Planning staff determined that the floor plan for the former garage space showing a bathroom and three separate enclosed rooms, the largest one containing a bar sink, raised issues with density and parking. Planning staff sent the applicant's representative a letter with its findings on the plan check, and another letter signed by the Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director") denying the request to have tandem parking satisfy project parking requirements. On March 6, 1998, the applicant's representative submitted an appeal of the Director's determination. Planning Commission's Action The Planning Commission is the designated review body for appeals of the Director's decisions. After a deadlocked vote regarding the request for tandem parking at the meeting of May 13, 1998,the Commission continued the matter to May 27, 1998. While the Commission discussed density and the definition of a bedroom in considering the request, staff reminded them that the matter they needed to focus on was the merit of the request for tandem parking. At the May 27, 1998 meeting, the Commission on a 4-2-1 vote (Commrs. Senn & Ready voting no; Commr. Jeffrey absent) denied the appeal and upheld the Director's decision to deny the request for tandem parking. 3-/ Council Agenda Report- .Veddle Appeal (Other 38-98) Page 2 The Commissioners supporting the motion felt that there would be difficulties in effectively managing how the parking spaces in the driveway would be used, given the two separate dwellings on the site, and had general concerns for neighborhood parking issues. Jerry Vaughan, an adjacent neighbor, submitted a petition against the request signed by seven neighbors, and expressed concerns with the functionality of the proposed tandem parking. Appeal Filed On June 4, 1998, Tom Weddle, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. The actual appeal form simply states that the appeal was filed because he did not agree with the Planning Commission, citing that their decision was political and did not deal with the facts. FISCAL II1IPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the appeal, thereby approving the tandem parking, based on findings included in Draft Resolution B. 2. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant/appellant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A (denying appeal & confirming Planning Commission's action) Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B (upholding appeal) Attachment 3: Appeal to City Council received 64-98 Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter& Resolution No. 5223-98 Attachment 5: Petition submitted at 5-27-98 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 6: Draft 5-13-98 & 5-27-98 Planning Commission minutes Attachment 7: 5-13-98 & 5-27-98 Planning Commission staff reports 3 Draft Resolution A RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY DENYING THE REQUEST TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GARAGE CONVERSION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1121 GEORGE ST. (OTHER 38-98) WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on May 13, 1998,and May 27, 1998, and denied the request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located at 1121 George Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 4, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1998, and has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (Other 38-98), the appeal, staff recommendations and reports thereof; makes the following findings: 1. The tandem parking proposed at this site cannot meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as the spaces will not necessarily be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling, given the layout of the parking spaces in relationship to the locations of the two units at the site. 2. The proposed tandem parking creates significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. 3- 3 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Appeal Denial. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby denied, and .therefore, the Commission's action to deny the request for tandem parking is upheld, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall return the lower portion of the existing one-bedroom apartment to a garage use. If permits are pursued to allow the lower portion of the building to be used as one additional bedroom and a bathroom, then the applicant shall otherwise provide conforming on-site parking consistent with code requirements for a minimum total of three spaces. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of . 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Kim Condon,Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 3-5� Draft Resolution B RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING THE REQUEST TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GARAGE CONVERSION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1121 GEORGE ST. (OTHER 38-98) WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on May 13, 1998, and May 27, 1998, and denied the request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located at 1121 George Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 4, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1998, and has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (Other 38-98), the appeal, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as the spaces can be assigned for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 2. The proposed tandem parking does not create significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. 3 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and therefore the request for tandem parking is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the converted garage. The floor plan shall be modified to show no more than one additional bedroom, consistent with density requirements contained in Section 17.16.050 of the zoning regulations, and the definition of a den contained in Section 17.04.100 of the zoning regulations. 2. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be used for no more than two two-bedroom units. This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall run with the land. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Kim Condon, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G.Jorgensen 3-4 �ii►�►►►�►►IIIlINNIIIIIIIIII p►il►°�►►I ;� 111111 IIVI c� o :SAn tuis oaspo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of c;—�Ll VC4 UPI 1 (�ZwlW14;::�#c LTrendered on which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) '�d a Ve CO VK VV\ +1 1. 4 � gze6,5 6T The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: c� /GiGn 11 ICC ^ on , ' �O ' L G Name/Department r (Date) APP ant: Y�k� ec 2�o7s ik I�tSo '4ye— �6fcr Name/Title U I Mailing Address (& Zip Code) s4+- 002-7 Home Phone Work Phone Representative: (u nr- Z Y esI Namerritle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) �3�0 For Official use Only: Calendared for T 7- 9� Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s); p ED J U N Q 41997 SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office 3- '`l . city o WIS OBISPOsan 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 3, 1998 Tom Weddle 1121 George Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SUBJECT: Other 38-98: 1121 George Street Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion. Dear Mr. Weddle: , The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 27, 1998 denied the appeal, upholding the Director's action to deny the request to allow tandem parking based on the findings and condition in the attached resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action(unless that day falls on a weekend, then the appeal period ends at 5:00 p.m. on the following Monday). The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 1998. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission. If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168. Sincerely, �1J Ronald G. Whisenand Development Review Manager RW:mk cc: Jerry Spivy Attachment: Resolution 5223-98 L:\pc\38-98-(d) ATTACHMENT 4 V� The 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. J (J SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5223-98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 27, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application Other 38-98, Thomas A. Weddle,applicantlappellant. TANDEM PARKING APPEAL REVIEWED: Other 38-98: Review of an appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located on the southeast side of George Street,between Henry and Ruth Streets. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department,City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1121 George Street GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Medium-Density Residential PRESENT ZONING: (R-2)Medium-Density Residential WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies .offered at said hearing has established existence of the following: 1. The .tandem parking proposed at this site cannot meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as the spaces will not necessarily be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling, given the layout of the parking spaces in relationship to the locations of the two units at the site. 3-� Resolution No. 5223-98 Other 38-98 Page 2 2. The proposed tandem parking creates significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Hearing Officer's decision denying the appeal of Other 38-98 be upheld and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall return the lower portion of the existing one-bedroom apartment to a garage use. If permits are pursued to allow the lower portion of the building to be used as one additional bedroom and a bathroom, then the applicant shall otherwise provide conforming on-site parking consistent with code requirements for a minimum total of three spaces. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon a separate roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Marx,Ready,Whittlesey NOES: Commissioners Senn and Ready REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jeffrey Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission MK\PC\.5223-98 April 7 , 1998 City Planning Commission I am against tandem parking at 1121 Ceorge St. : Ltc L+7n l --------1-------- C/ L ,7f :-2 -!/G� _ a� 11th_ Sv- -------- --------------------------- ATTACHMENT -------- ---------------------------ATTACHMENT 5 3 /� DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 139 1998 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 .p.m. on Wednesday, May 13, 1998 in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Paul Ready, Jan Howell Marx, Mary Whittlesey, David Jeffrey, John Ashbaugh (arriving at 8:10), and Chairman Charles Senn Absent: Commissioner John Ewan Staff Present: Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Public Works Director Al Cablay, and Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as amended. Items #3 and #4 were heard after Item #1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of April 8, 1998, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1121 Georim Street. O 38-98: Appeal of the Community .Development Director's decision to deny a request for tandem parking; R-2 Zone; Tom Weddle, applicant. ATTACHMENT 6 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1998 Page 2 Commissioner Ready disclosed that-although he is acquainted with the applicant he does not have a conflict of interest and will be participating in the hearing of this item. Commissioner Jeffrey refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Associate Planner Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Community Development Director's action denying the requested tandem parking. There were no comments/questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jerry Spivy, project architect, doesn't believe tandem parking is required because they're not requesting an extra bedroom which would invoke the additional parking. What's indicated on the plan is what's proposed. A bedroom isn't proposed. There are three parking spaces. One covered parking spaces is for the one-bedroom unit and the two tandem spaces are for the two-bedroom unit. Mr. Weddle is the owner and occupant and is able to designate the tandem spaces for the two-bedroom unit. According to the parking standards, a tandem space for a single dwelling is allowed in the street yard. The computer room/office area is referred to by staff as a bedroom. It is not a bedroom because it doesn't comply to the UBC relative to sleeping quarters. The computer room/office is not designed for sleeping and complies to the Planning Dept.'s definition of a den. Commissioner Ready asked if the displayed floor plan is the proposed remodel. Mr. Spivy replied yes, and described the areas. Associate Planner Mandeville described the plans/layout using the overhead. Mr. Spivy stated they did not create an additional bedroom and this issue is unnecessary.. The computer room/office cannot be created into a bedroom because there isn't legal egress. Chairman Senn noted if the Commission were to approve the applicant's position and it was determined the office was being used for sleeping quarters, the city would be entitled to commence an enforcement action. The public comment session was closed. Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1998 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ready asked why the Commission is concemed about parking when a bedroom isn't proposed. Development Review Manager Whisenand is concerned about design of the rooms. By zoning definition, not building code definition, the room fits the definition of separate room - a bedroom. The option of the applicant would be to knock out the walls and have one large area. Commissioner Ready asked if the application is specifically for a bedroom. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the applicant's building permit is not for an additional bedroom,but it's for the conversion of a garage. Commissioner Marx asked if conversion has already occurred. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes, the garage has been converted without permits. Development Review Manager Whisenand cited the definition of lofts/dens, Page 5, Section 17.04.100. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if this a nonconforming structure because the setbacks to the adjoining lot seem tight. Development Review Manager Whisenand explained the wall exists and that they're not going to increase the nonconforming situation by.interior conversions. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if covered parking requirements apply. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied no, this is zoned R-2. Commissioner Ready moved to uphold the appeal and request for tandem parking based upon the proposed findings that are set forth in the staff report on Page 4 Findings #I and #2. The motion was seconded by Chairman Senn Commissioner Ready is concerned as to whether or not the Commission needs to be considering tandem parking. If this room were to be used as a bedroom/sleeping quarters, there are enforcement actions that can be taken against the applicant. Section 17.16.060 stated parking spaces canbe designated for a particular unit. 3 iy� Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1998 Page 4 Commissioner Whittlesey is concerned about required long term tandem parking and what could happen if the site were sold and the owner is no longer living on site. Development Review Manager Whisenand explained that the addition of another bedroom will trigger the requirement of another parking space. Chairman Senn assumes that what the applicant is applying for is what will be constructed. He cannot assume the applicant is going to do something illegal. The Commission has to base its decision on what's presented. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated staff feels closing the garage door and converting it to a separate room, whatever it's used for, is defined by zoning as a bedroom if it's not opened up on at least one side. AYES: Commissioner Ready and Chairman Senn NOES: Commissioners Marx and Whittlesey REFRAIN: Commissioner Jeffrey The motion failed 2-2-1. Commissioners Ashbaugh and Ewan were absent and Commissioner Jeffrey refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Chairman Senn called Mr. Spivy to the podium to explain options available to him. Mr. Spivy requested a continuance so the item could be heard by the full Commission. Commissioner Marx moved to continue this item to May 27, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesey. Commissioner Marx requested any information relative to complaints made against the applicant be supplied at the next hearing. AYES: Commissioners Marx, Whittlesey, Ready, and Chairman Senn NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Jeffrey The motion carried 4-0-1. Commissioners Ashbaugh and Ewan were absent and Commissioner Jeffrey refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 2 1. 1121 George Street: O 38-98: Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request for tandem parking; R-2 Zone; Tom Weddle, applicant/appellant. Commissioners.Ewan and Ashbaugh were absent for the previous hearing of this but noted they had reviewed the tapes. Commissioner Ready disclosed that he is acquainted with the applicant, he does not feel he has a conflict of interest, and will be participating in the hearing of this item. Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's action to deny the requested tandem parking. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the Commission has previously approved tandem parking in similar situations. Development Review Manager Whisenand remembers the last tandem parking approval being on Johnson Ave. approximately three years ago for a second dwelling unit. There were no further questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jerry Spivy, project architect, stated the property is owner occupied and parking spaces can be assigned for the front unit. If the property were sold, the future owner could designate parking as well. He believes tandem parking is appropriate but unnecessary because the addition is not a bedroom. He had requested a continuance to review the minutes, but is now asking that the project move forward. Tandem parking is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and any conflicts can be controlled by lease arrangements with the tenants. Jerry Vaughn, 1105 George St., distributed a petition signed by neighbors concerned about this project and noted Mr. Weddle has illegally added to his house. He believes the addition will become a rental and tandem parking won't work. There is a parking situation in the neighborhood. Mr. Weddle has 12' high fencing, windows and a dangerous stairway on the property line. Neighbors are thankful Mr. Weddle has cleaned up his yard in preparation of this process. Neighbors have had to mow Mr. Weddle's lawn because it was left as a mess. He asked the Commission to deny this request. There Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 3 are children in the neighborhood and more traffic is a concern. The neighborhood is regenerating and it's going to be a nice. The public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission and staff discussed site parking, the garage size, and parking/street access. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Hearing Officer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesey. Commissioner Ashbaugh expressed concern about the inability to designate these units for exclusive use. He feels this neighborhood is experiencing a regeneration and may have major historical significant in relation to the Railroad Master Plan. The owner seems to have attempted to max out the possibilities on the property. He's uncomfortable with the tandem parking. Commissioner Ready feels the proposed tandem parking can meet the criteria of tandem parking on the site and parking spaces can be assigned for exclusive use by tenants of a . designated building. He cannot support the motion. AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Whittlesey, Marx, and Ewan NOES: Commissioner Ready and Chairman Senn REFRAIN: None The motion carried 4-2. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. 2. 1535 Carmel Street: A 46-98: Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that as loft be eliminated form a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom; R-2 Zone; William Tickell, applicant and appellant. Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit as conditioned. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the entire rear unit is referred to as a detached bedroom or is it just the loft. 3-/7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner M MEETING DATE: May 27, 1998 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager O FILE NUMBER: OTHER 38-98 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1121 George Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located on the southeast side of George Street,between Henry&Ruth Streets. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review On May 13, 1998, the Planning Commission considered the above appeal. The staff report prepared for this meeting agenda packet is attached which contains a detailed analysis of the project and issues. On a 2-2 vote, the Commission deadlocked on a motion to uphold the appeal and allow the tandem parking. On a 40 vote, the Commission continued consideration of the appeal to 5-27-98. Additional Information Definition of a bedroom The Planning Commission asked staff to provide more information about how a bedroom is defined in the zoning regulations and how that definition applies to the converted garage space. The zoning regulations do not directly provide a definition of a bedroom. However, the definition of a "den" (or "family room", "sewing room", "loft" or "studio"), those areas of typical floor spaces that are not bedrooms,kitchens or bathrooms, is defined. That definition is: "A room which is open on at least one side, does not contain a wardrobe, closet or similar facility, and which is not designed for sleeping." A room is not considered a bedroom if it meets all of the above criteria. Labels placed on plans that they are some other kind of room besides a bedroom are not good enough. People use rooms for different purposes depending on the number of persons residing at the house, their relationships to one another and lifestyle preferences. Properties are sold over time to other people that may use the same floor space differently. Therefore,the controlling factor is how the floor area is physically arranged in relationship to other parts of the house. Therefore,the bottom line is that a room must meet all of the criteria above, including being open on at least one side, to not be considered a bedroom. The proposed lower floor (converted garage space) of the one-bedroom unit contains three bedrooms by City definitions because the rooms are enclosed on all sides. To comply with ATTACHMENT .7 3��- Other 38-98 (Weddle Appe., Page 2 density standards, the floor plan could be modified to show one large room with the bathroom downstairs. The letter attached to the 5-13-98 staff report also notes that it may be possible to legitimately create a storage area under certain circumstances, such as using otherwise uninhabitable space that does not provide a direct linkage between rooms. The City does not have maximum floor areas for various types of residential units. However, doubling the floor area of an existing one-bedroom apartment (600 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft.), that already contains living dining, kitchen, and bath rooms, and not creating another bedroom is highly improbable. The other unit already on the site, a two-bedroom house, contains less floor area- 1,100 square feet. Enforcement Correspondence The garage conversion issue started with a neighborhood complaint. Also, staff has received complaints regarding property maintenance issues at the site. The actual correspondences related to these enforcement matters are considered confidential and as such cannot be attached to this report for the Commission's review. Staff will have chronologies of the recent enforcement matters at the site available at the meeting should the Commission have specific questions about when certain contacts were made, inspections conducted and letters sent out. Conclusion The issue before the Planning Commission is not what changes need to be made to the floor plan to conform with density, it is the appeal of the tandem parking request. Planning staff can work with the applicant's architect to update the floor plan to show a conforming one-bedroom apartment. The Commission needs to decide the merits of the tandem parking request. The issue is whether the proposed arrangement of parking can efficiently serve the residents at the site in the two separate dwellings without conflicts. If the Commission agrees with the Community Development Director, then the appeal would be denied and his action upheld. With this scenario, the applicant would need to convert the garage back to a parking area or somehow otherwise meet the City's parking requirements. If the Commission agrees that tandem parking is a legitimate way of handling site parking demands, then the Commission would uphold the appeal and allow the tandem parking arrangement. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION As is indicated in the attached original staff report, staff recommends that the appeal be denied, which would uphold the Community Development Director's action to deny the requested tandem parking. Attached: 5-13-98 Planning Commission report 3 l� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEnt a 1 BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner FR . MEETING DATE: May 13, 1998 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Managoo FILE NUMBER: OTHER 38-98 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1121 George Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow tandem parking in conjunction with a garage conversion for property located on the southeast side of George Street,between Henry&Ruth Streets. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's action denying the requested tandem parking. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review The applicant converted an existing garage into living area at 1121 George Street. The City first became aware of the issue on April 19, 1997, when a neighbor filed a complaint that an apartment was being created in the space that used to be a garage. That same day a stop work notice was issued. The applicant's representative has been working with Community Development Department staff to prepare plans that show the work that has been done. Planning staff determined that the floor plan for the former garage space showing a bathroom and three separate enclosed rooms, the. largest one containing a bar sink, raised issues with density and parking. Planning staff sent the applicant's representative the attached letter with its findings on the plan check, and another letter signed by the Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director") regarding the request to have tandem parking satisfy project parking requirements. On March 6, 1998, the applicant's representative submitted the attached letter appealing the Director's determination. The Planning Commission is the designated review body for appeals of the Director's decisions. On April 8, 1998, the matter was continued without discussion to this agenda of May 13, 1998. Data Summary Address: 1121 George Street Applicant/Appellant: Thomas A. Weddle Applicant's Representative: Jerry Spivy Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2) General Plan: Medium-Density Residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt under Section 15303.(b), Class 3, New 3-� A 38-98 (Weddle Appeal) Page 2 Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,of the CEQA Guidelines. Project action deadline: The zoning regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for.the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Site Description The rectangular site contains 7,500 square feet and has frontages on both George and Ella Streets. It slopes down toward George Street at an average slope of about 15 percent. It is developed with a 2-bedroom house and a 1-bedroom apartment over the converted garage space that both face George Street. There is also a two-story garage and storage structure that faces Ella Street. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single-family homes and apartments. EVALUATION 1. Densi The project site has a lot area of 7,500 square feet (0.172 acre). Equivalent allowed density for the site is 2.07 units (0.172 acre x 12 units/acre = 2.066 or 2.07 units). Prior to the garage conversion, two separate residences existed - a much older two-bedroom house, and a relatively newer one-bedroom apartment built about 1950. These two units without the garage conversion would be considered to total 1.66 equivalent units. In terms of density alone,the lower portion of the one-bedroom unit(the converted garage) could be used as an additional bedroom and still conform with site density restrictions. However,plans as submitted for the converted garage space show three separate living areas along with a bathroom. Planning staff has advised the applicant that the floor plan needs to modified to show one large room, rather than three separate and enclosed rooms to address density concerns. The attached letter from staff further advises the applicant that the bathroom could remain and storage areas could legitimately be created under certain conditions. 2. Parldn� There are currently two parking spaces on site to serve existing development - one, a covered space in the garage located off of Ella Street, and the second, an uncovered space in front of the converted garage with access off of George Street. Parking for the pre-existing development (a 1-bedroom unit & 2-bedroom unit) under current standards would be 4 spaces. Therefore, existing parking is considered to be non-conforming. Existing legal non-conforming parking situations can continue into the future indefinitely as long as site development remains the same. However, when bedroom additions are made to residential structures which are non-conforming because they do not meet current parking requirements, then additional parking needs to be provided to create a more conforming parking situation. A 38-98 (Weddle Appeal) Page 3 Section 17.16.060 L. of the zoning regulations outlines the process for evaluating the parking requirements for projects where existing parking is non-conforming and additions are proposed. The code says that with this type of situation that "the parking spaces required for the addition need to provided in conformance with this chapter, in addition to all parking spaces already provided for the existing use or structure. " With a modified project, meaning that the floor plan for the converted garage was modified as previously described to show no more than one - additional bedroom,the project would generate a requirement for one additional space. The applicant has proposed that the third space for the project be provided in tandem in the street yard area off of George Street. On February 26, 1998, the Director denied that request based on the two findings included in the Recommendation,section of this report (also included in the original letter which is attached). The applicant has appealed the Director's determination. Staff does not support the use of tandem parking here because of the proximity of the two uncovered spaces to both units, and the likelihood for conflicts in their use, given that proximity. Given the amount of site development, there does not appear to be other simple solutions to providing on-site parking. Potentially, the existing non-conforming garage off of Ella Street could be demolished and replaced with new conforming parking. 3. Compliance with the City's Property Maintenance Standards At the April 8, 1998 meeting, two neighbors that were present expressed concerns with the appearance and the maintenance of the property. They asked that the property be re-posted and that staff provide a report on any existing violations at the site in terms of the City's Property Maintenance Standards. The City's Neighborhood Service Manager is currently working with the applicant to correct some potential code violations such as a trailer parked in the street yard and improper storage of trash containers. It should be noted that the storage of materials and other machinery and tools in yards is allowed while there is an active building permit on file for the site. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the appeal, thereby approving the tandem parking. Appropriate findings for approval are included at the end of this report. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants/appellants. 3. The Commission may deny the appeal based on different or modified findings. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments have concerns with this request. A 38-98 (Weddle Appeal) Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, upholding the Director's action to deny the request to allow tandem parking, based on the following findings and condition: Findings 1. The tandem parking proposed at this site cannot meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as the spaces will not necessarily be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling, given the layout of the parking spaces in relationship to the locations ofthe two units at the site. 2. The proposed tandem parking creates significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. Condition 1. The applicant shall return the lower portion of the existing one-bedroom apartment to a garage use. If permits are pursued to allow the lower portion of the building to be used as one additional bedroom and a bathroom, then the applicant shall otherwise provide conforming on-site parking consistent with code requirements for a minimum total of three spaces. If the Planning Commission chooses to uphold the appeal, and approve the request for tandem parking,then appropriate findings and conditions would be: Findings 1. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 I. of the zoning regulations as the spaces can be assigned for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 2. The proposed tandem parking does not create significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. Conditions 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the converted garage. The floor plan shall be modified to'show no more than one additional bedroom, consistent with density requirements contained in Section 17.16.050 of the zoning regulations, and the definition of a den contained in Section 17.04.100 of the zoning regulations. 2. The applicant shall submit a covenant agreement for the review and approval of the 3-�3 A 38=98 (Weddle.Appeal) Page 5 Community Development Director acknowledging that development at the site may be used for no more than two two=bedroom units: This agreement shall be recorded_ in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall ran with the land: Attached: Vicinity map Letters from Planning staff to Jerry $pivy dated'2-2&98 Appealletter from Jerry Spivy dated MTN Enclosed: Hill=size project plans O_ S R- 3 y IJ 7. jt A�,In S � � � A • Ufw• '.'\ V iC b • �' _ G ^'1 rf.�r,• T t S. 9 t • • T WE Sac ''• .�` rye- , � Ao `\ < \ � I ,. ^ \. � �`• Y� \\\ZJe!. ij Ir N\ O�R ,^Of° tj� ON 49 It, 14 V f•° ` \`\. \////�j pts la /\ O ••�• \��,,•t" ew�a• ^\ ~,\ low NN .off Ile j., JTw4�ti�Yaftl�� \ VICINITY MAP OTHER 38-98QQ NORTH 1121 GEORGE STREET 3-as ��►����h������ii�a��II►IIIII�11111���1°°°��i� III city ® saw luis oBi po 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 26, 1998 Jerry Spivy 2675 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SUBJECT: Garage Conversion at 1121 George Street; Building Permit Application No.70593 Dear Mr. Spivy: City staff has reviewed the revised plans submitted for the above referenced project. As has been mentioned with the two previous plan check reviews, Planning staff continues to find that the project along with existing site development, does not comply with the property development standards for the R-2 zone. Planning staff would recommend that the garage be returned to use as a parking space. If you wish to pursue the building permit application to use the converted garage as living space, then the following steps must be taken: 1. The proposed floor plan for the previous garage space needs to be modified to show one large room, rather than three separate enclosed rooms. The bathroom could remain, as well as a storage area created under certain circumstances. A storage area could legitimately be created if it is using otherwise uninhabitable space and does not provide a direct linkage between rooms. 2. Provide an additional parking space for the proposed bedroom addition. This would involve a request for tandem parking. As indicated in the attached letter, the Community Development Director has denied the use of tandem parking with this project. Therefore, if you wish to pursue the project, you will need to file an appeal of the Director's determination which will be scheduled for the Planning Commission's consideration. 3. With modifications to the floor plan and approval of tandem parking by the Planning Commission, then a covenant agreement would need to be filed that runs with the land and limits use of the building to a two-bedroom apartment. If you have any questions,I may be reached at(805)781-7168. Sincerely, Vice t Pam Ricci, Associate Planner 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. ������II�Vl�lllll�llllllllll �U�������III atOf cY 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 26, 1998 Jerry Spivy 2675 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Garage Conversion at 1121 George Street; Building Permit Application No. 70593 Dear Mr. Spivy: I have reviewed your request to approve tandem parking, one space behind the other, for the above project at the above address. In accordance with Section 17.16.020 D.7. of the zoning regulations, you have requested that one of the unenclosed parking spaces be located within the required street yard. I have determined that the proposed tandem parking is not consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations and have denied your request,based on the following findings: 1. The tandem parking proposed at this site cannot meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.0601. of the zoning regulations as the spaces will not necessarily be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling, given the layout of the parking spaces in relationship to the locations of the two units at the site. 2. The proposed tandem parking creates significant potential for conflict between the residents at the site in terms of the efficient use of the parking spaces. 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 you have any questions,please call Pam Ricci at 781-7168. Sinc , Arnold B. Jonas, Community Developme =Director �� The 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. J AS ry _ oTE+ER 38-98 G1tr 6F -!5;;Ao "r= ci5iw, , rLAttltiN� P�-M Mr-. umm.5 W(sILS Tb ArtwA . ?f+5 DI fzE�C1-04 P!:*aL or lRr T^tNP-1 rWW, =Pkr, f 1:5-( 11D IW 1'i�>ft+ ' ;JW C�?f-IM�=•��? ��Y P RECEIVED MAR 0 u 1998 Crrf OF SM 2675 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo California 93401 805 544-2029 � '