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 � '