Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 8 - MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT A 46-98: REQUEST TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLANS TO ALLOW A 1.5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK (1535 CARMEL STREET) Council j agenba nEpoin -Numb— CITYOF SAN LUIS OB 1 S P 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT A 46-98: REQUEST TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLANS TO ALLOW A 1.5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK (1535 CARMEL STREET). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A. denying the requested modification by William E. Tickell to amend previously-approved plans to allow a 1.5-foot side yard setback where a 4-foot side yard had been previously approved, and a 6-foot side yard is normally required, for property located on the southwest side of Carmel Street, between Buchon and Islay Streets (1535 Carmel Street). DISCUSSION Situation On July 7, 1998, the City Council approved an administrative use permit to allow an addition to an existing house and the development of a new detached bedroom behind the house. The use permit was necessary for three different reasons: • to allow further development of a non-conforming lot(the R-2 site is only 3,600 square feet); • to allow an addition to a non-conforming building - the front house is non-conforming in terms of current street and side yard setback requirements; and • to allow a setback reduction for the proposed addition to the front house -the building height closest to the property line was previously shown as 19 feet (a 19' building height requires a 8-foot side yard; a 4-foot side yard exists). The reason that the administrative use permit was before the Council was that it had been appealed by both the applicant, William E. Tickell,and one of the adjacent property owners, Kim Martin (1521 Carmel). Mr. Tickell appealed the Planning Commission's decision because of the restriction imposed by a condition to limit-the gross floor area of the detached bedroom to a maximum of 400 square feet. Ms. Martin appealed because of the scale and height of the new structure and the need to include a sleeping loft in what is considered a detached bedroom. The Council upheld the appeal of Ms. Martin which modified a condition of use permit approval requiring that the loft level be eliminated from the detached bedroom and requiring the rear building to full comply with setback standards. Mr. Tickell has submitted revised project plans which comply with all of the requirements of the original Council approval except one. That exception is the requested side yard reduction for the 8-1 Council Agenda Report- ,.,:kefl Modification of Use Permit(A 4%;!,98) Page 2 loft addition to the front house. Based on the height of the structure which has been modified to be about 15 feet to the plate line of the cantilevered loft addition, a 6-foot setback would normally be required. The project was approved with a 4-foot side yard consistent with the house's existing setback. Plans now indicate that the loft level of the front house would cantilever out an additional 30 inches from the existing wall. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a 1.5-foot side yard where the 4-foot side yard had been previously approved. The City Attorney determined that the proposed modification to the project previously approved by the City Council would need to return directly to the Council for review and consideration. Staff Analysis/Conclusion The project is a small one, but it has a long and complicated history, and several public hearings have been held to discuss it. The staff report prepared for the July 7, 1998 City Council meeting is attached to this report as a reference (it incorporates the May 27, 1998 Planning Commission staff report as an attachment). The focus of concern with the previous review of the project was the design and development of the new detached bedroom building at the rear of the site. The original design of this building was questioned for its intended purpose as a detached bedroom because of its size and scale. Because of the focus on the rear building at previous hearings, the proposed changes to the front house were not as greatly scrutinized. Staff feels that it has been reasonable in working out a solution with the applicant to allow him to make improvements to the site, given the allowed density, small lot size and existing improvements. However, staff does not support further reducing the required setback for the front house from 4 feet to 1.5 feet. The allowance of a 4-foot setback was already a deviation from normally required yard standards since the height of the proposed building would require a 6-foot setback. The Hearing Officer, Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, supported the exception requested with previous plans from 8 feet to 4 feet, given that the existing house had a four-foot setback. However, there seems to be no compelling evidence to further reduce the required side yard setback. Even with the requirement that an easement be filed requiring a minimum of 10 feet separation between buildings on adjacent properties, staff feels that the loft can be built without the need to request additional exceptions. FISCAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the proposed modification to the use permit,based on findings and with conditions (Draft Resolution"B"). 8-2 Council Agenda Report--.ickell Modification of Use Permit(A ---i98) Page 3 2. The Council could require that the loft addition fully comply with yard standards.and be set back the fall 6 feet.. .3. The Council may continue-action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellants. Attached: Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A (CAO's recommendation) Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B (allow requested modification) Attachment 3: Reduced copies of project plans Attachment 4: City Council Resolution No. 8824(1998 Series) Attachment 5: 7-7=98 City Council report Enclosed: Project Plans 8-3 Draft Resolution A RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLANS TO ALLOW A 15-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A LOFT ADDITION TO THE FRONT HOUSE LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999, to consider a modification to a previously-approved Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 to allow a reduced side yard setback from 4 feet to 1.5 feet for a loft addition to the front house at 1535 Carmel Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council had previously conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and considered two separate appeals of the Planning Commission's action to approve Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 which allowed: firther development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; based on findings, and with conditions; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998, because she felt that the proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the 8-4 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, . and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and approved the Administrative Use Permit A 46-99 with a modification to the wording of Condition No. 3 and upholding the other conditions endorsed by the Planning Commission as reflected in City Council Resolution No. 8824 (1998 Series). BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findin s. That this Council, after consideration of the requested modification to the previously-approved Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 to allow a reduced side yard setback from 4 feet to 1.5 feet for a loft addition to the front house at 1535 Carmel Street, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The requested exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of his property. It appears that there are alteratives to the submitted plans to create the loft addition to the main house with a 4-foot side yard setback as originally approved by the City Council on July 7, 1998. 2. The house with the proposed addition is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development with a 4-foot setback consistent with the existing setback of the house. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Modification denial. The requested side yard reduction from the previously approved four feet to 1.5 feet is denied. Therefore, all of the conditions of the use permit approved by the City Council on July 7, 1998, that are contained in City Council Resolution No. 8824 (1998 Series)remain in effect. 8-5 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 3 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 , 1999. Mayor Allen Settle . ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM:. City Attorney Jeffrey G..Jorgensen MOD A 46-98(Res.B-approve).doc 8-6 Draft Resolution B RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLANS TO ALLOW A 1.5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A LOFT ADDITION TO THE FRONT HOUSE LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999, to consider a modification to a previously-approved Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 to allow a reduced side yard setback from 4 feet to 1.5 feet for a loft addition to the front house at 1535 Carmel Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council had previously conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and considered two separate appeals of the Planning Commission's action to approve Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 which allowed: further development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; based on findings, and with conditions; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998, because she felt that then proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to fiuther reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the 8-7 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and •approved the Administrative Use Permit A 46-99 with a modification to the wording of Condition No. 3 and upholding the other conditions endorsed by the Planning Commission as reflected in City Council Resolution No. 8824 (1998 Series). 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 requested modification to the previously-approved Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 to allow a reduced side yard setback from 4 feet to 1.5 feet for a loft addition to the front house at 1535 Carmel Street, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity,with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 2. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 3. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 4. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 5. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Modification approval. The requested side yard reduction from the previously approved four feet to 1.5 feet is approved. All of the conditions of the use permit approved by the City Council on July 7, 1998,that are contained in City Council Resolution No. 8824(1998 Series)remain in effect. 8-8 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 3 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 77 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk . APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey &Jorgensen MOD A 46-98(Res.B-approve).doc S-9 V1 > CD Attachment 3 W -5 sm yy v- TV i� � " e Z Qu LU all oI LL UN Ld < lit 1 0 NV—0 8-10 { j 1 e J 3 >3 s• f i 3 � a j ° v V 3 ylY O O © O O O F 33 c� LL J ' - Tom" —it p1 (�• '\\ n s I -T-- to �: Ihrnii . . I -� N I SEl I r 1 I ' u I W • Q bi I 2 I II I I W _ I r Gli g 1 � of Ct Z .p I i I I 8-11 II co 03 lu LU z LU LU 2i tv 19 ME -------------- 7 < —3 < Lb 8-12 Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO.8824 (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION BY THE APPELLANT,IQM MARTIN,THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT WITH A MODIFIED CONDITION NO.3 EI MINATING THE PROPOSED LOFT IN A PROPOSED DETACHED BEROOM LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow fiuther development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998 because she felt that the proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff AgA3 Resolution No. 8824 (1998 Series) Page 2 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 (A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom 'is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development 4. Theproposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.0601. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard 9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to Protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to 8-14 Resolution No. 8824(1998 Series) Page 3 maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Anneal aynroval. Kim Martin's appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions, including a modified Condition No. 3 which eliminates the loft level in the proposed detached bedroom: 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the CommunityDevelopment Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the detached bedroom. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall run with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale,landscaping proposals,and proposed driveway materials. SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The appeal of the applicant, William Tickell, of the Planning Commission's action is denied. 8-15 i Resolution No. 8824 (1998 Series) Page 4 On motion of Council Member Smith , seconded by Council Member Williams and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Smith, Williams, Roalman, Mayor Settle NOES: Council Member Romero ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this. 7 day of J 199 . 73 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Con Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /ity ttor ey G. Jorgensen 8-16 Attachment Council 7_ _q8 acEnba nepoin C I TY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �J Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner F / SUBJECT: Use Permit A 46-98: Appeals of the Planning Commission's action to amend a condition of an approved administrative use permit, regarding a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom, for property located on the southwest side of Carmel Street, between Buchon and Islay Streets(1535 Carmel Street). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeals, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to approve the administrative use permit, based on findings, and with conditions, including an amended Condition No. 3 as modified by the Commission. DISCUSSION Situation A small one-bedroom house, detached garage and a 280 square-foot building that was historically used as a detached bedroom, currently exist on the site. William Tickell, the applicant, and also one of the appellants, wants to add onto the front house and rebuild the rear building. On March 17, 1998,he applied for an administrative use permit to pursue the proposed project. The use permit was necessary for three different reasons: • to allow further development of a non-conforming lot(the R-2 site is only 3,600 square feet); • to allow an addition to a non-conforming building - the front house is non-conforming in terms of current street and side yard setback requirements;and • to allow a setback reduction for the proposed addition to the front house -the building height closest to the property line will be 19 feet(a 19' building height requires a 8-foot side yard; a 4-foot side yard exists). Administrative Use Permit Review On May 1, 1998, the Hearing Officer approved the use permit, based on findings, and with six conditions. On May 1, 1998, an appeal of the decision was filed by the applicant on the basis of a contention with Condition No. 3. Specifically, the appellant disagreed with the requirement to eliminate the loft space from the rear building(detached bedroom). Planning Commission's Action (Ma-y A7, 1998) Commission discussion focused on the function of the detached bedroom and how its sjge Council Agenda Report-Tickell/Martin Appeal (A 46-98) Page 2 . affect its use as a separate dwelling unit. Some Commissioners felt that, without having strict standards on the size of a detached bedroom, the City should not dictate design. Other Commissioners expressed fears that the unit would be ultimately used as a separate dwelling and had concerns with density, tandem parking and the impacts of the proposed structure on the very small site. The Commission had a difficult time coming up with a motion that was acceptable to the majority. An initial vote to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's decision failed on a 3-3 vote. Two other motions to uphold the appeal by modifying Condition No. 3 both failed on similarly deadlocked votes. A fourth motion to uphold the appeal by modifying Condition No. 3 to restrict the total gross floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet was approved on a 5-1-1 vote (Commr. Ready voting no; Commr.Jeffrey absent). Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel Street, a neighbor for the past 6 years, noted problems with the way that the site had been rented to large groups of people in the past and indicated concerns that the site would be similarly used in the future. She felt that it was not necessary to have such a large and elaborate floor plan for a detached bedroom. She commented that the front house could easily be used as a 2-bedroom house and that the garage may be planned for residential use also. She noted concerns with the height of the structure and potential impacts to her sunlight Anneals Filed On June 2, 1998,Kim Martin filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Her appeal notes that the existing detached structure behind the main house has not been used as a bedroom for two years. She also questions the scale and height of the new structure and the need to include a sleeping loft in what is considered a detached bedroom. She specifically requests that the initially approved Condition No. 3 approved by the Hearing Officer to eliminate the loft portion of the detached bedroom be reinstated. On June 5, 1998, William Tickell, applicant and appellant, also filed an appeal of the Commission's decision because of the restriction imposed by the Commission through the amended Condition No. 3 to limit the gross floor area of the detached bedroom to a maximum of 400 square feet His appeal was in protest to having to reduce the size of the proposed detached bedroom. He wants the original footprint for the detached bedroom to be allowed (the gross floor area depicted on plans is about 538 square feet). He emphasizes that the condition will result in about a 25%reduction of the total floor area of the detached bedroom. Staff Analysis/Conclusion The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's original consideration of Mr. Tickell's appeal of the use permit is attached to this report as a reference. Since his use permit was approved to allow him to proceed with his proposed project, the appeal has been focused on a component of the project approval, rather than the total action itself. The contested part of the 8-18 Council Agenda Report-Tickell/Martin Appeal (A 46-98) Page 3 original approval was specifically with Condition No. 3 which required that a proposed loft area be removed from the new detached bedroom building behind the main house. The condition was originally proposed to address concerns that the scale and layout of this building was not consistent with its intended use as a detached bedroom. Staff earlier determined that initially submitted plans showing the back building as a separate dwelling unit would not be consistent with allowed density. Plans were changed by the applicant to show the rear building as a detached bedroom with a 5-foot side yard setback. In staffs opinion, some restriction on the scale of the new detached building is both appropriate and advisable, given the very small size of the lot (3,600 square feet), and the intended use of the structure (detached bedroom to main house). Staff feels that the Commission's revision to Condition No. 3 to limit the building's gross floor area to a maximum of 400 square feet was a valid attempt to allow the applicant some flexibility with its design, but also address the concerns of neighbors and staff with the scale and the potential use of the building as a separate dwelling unit. An alterative to the square footage limitation, that also attempts to address those same concerns with scale and use, would be to reinstate Condition No. 3 as originally approved by the Hearing Officer requiring the elimination of the loft(consistent with appeal by Kim Martin). Staff feels that it has been reasonable in working out a solution with the applicant to allow him to make improvements to the site. However, staff feels strongly that an over 500 square-foot building containing sitting, dressing, sleeping and laundry facilities is of a scale that goes beyond the intent of a detached bedroom(as a comparison,a studio apartment must be 450 square feet or less). As Ms. Martin stated at the administrative hearing, the detached bedroom should be designed for its intended purpose as a sleeping room that is ancillary to the main house, rather than recreating common areas and other household functions of the main house in the bedroom. FISCAL EWPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve Mr. Tickell's appeal, thereby approving the use permit with conditions, including an amended Condition No. 3 with no specific restrictions regarding a . loft or a maximum floor area for the detached bedroom, based on the findings included in Draft Resolution B. This Resolution also includes denying the appeal of Ms. Martin. 2. The Council may approve Ms. Martin's appeal, thereby approving the use permit with conditions, including an amended Condition No. 3 with a requirement that the loft be eliminated from the detached bedroom, based on the findings included in Draft Resolution C (Hearing Officer's approval). This Resolution also includes denying the appeal of Mr. Tickell. 8-19 Council Agenda Report-Tickell/Martin Appeal(A 46-98) Page 4 3. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellants. Attached: Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A(deny appeal-Planning Commission's action) Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B (uphold Mr. Tickell's appeal) Attachment 3: Draft Resolution B (uphold Ms. Martin's appeal) Attachment 4: Appeals to City Council ' Attachment 5: Planning Commission follow-up letter&Resolution No. 5224-98 Attachment 6: Draft 5-27-98 Planning Commission minutes Attachment 7: 5-27-98 Planning Commission staff report Enclosed: Project Plans 8-20 Draft Resolution A RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION BY THE APPLICANT,WILLIAM TICKELL,AND A NEIGHBOR, KIM MARTIN,THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT WITH APPROVED CONDITIONS FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the administrative use permit, conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow fiirther development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998, because she felt that the proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998, because he did not want to finther reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. 8-21 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 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 (A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit. 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. 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 it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a mining of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to 8-22 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 3 maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Anneal denial. The appeals of the Planning Commission's action by the applicant, William Tickell, and a neighbor, Kim Martin,are denied, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions approved by the Planning Commission: 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The gross floor area shall not exceed 400 square feet 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall run with the land. S. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale, landscaping proposals,and proposed driveway materials. 8-23 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 4 On' notion 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 &.24 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 BY THE APPLICANT,WILLIAM TICKELL,THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT WITH A MODIFIED CONDITION NO.3 ELIMINATING SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR A PROPOSED DETACHED BEROOM LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow further development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998 because she felt that the proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998,because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. 8-25 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 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 (A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development. 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit. 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. 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 it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation.easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to 5-26 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 3 maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The appeal of the applicant, Bill Tickell, of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions, including a modified Condition No. 3 which eliminates any restrictions on floor area for the proposed detached bedroom: 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem,-that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall run with the land 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale,landscaping proposals,and proposed driveway materials. SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The appeal of the neighbor, Kim Martin, of the Planning Commission's action is denied. 8-27 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 4 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: Gity Attorney Jdffrey G.Jorgensen a 8-28 Draft Resolution C 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 BY THE APPELLANT,KIM MARTIN,THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT WITH A MODIFIED CONDITION NO.3 ELIMINATING THE PROPOSED LOFT IN A PROPOSED DETACHED BEROOM LOCATED AT 1535 CARMEL ST. (USE PERMIT A 46-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to modify Condition No. 3 of the administrative use permit conditions approved by the Hearing Officer to allow further development of a non-conforming lot, an addition to a non-conforming building; and a reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 3 to limit the floor area of the detached bedroom to 400 square feet; and WHEREAS, Kim Martin, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1521 Carmel Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 2, 1998 because she felt that the proposed loft in the rear detached bedroom should be eliminated, and that the new building was both too large and too tall for its intended purpose; and WHEREAS, William E. Tickell, the applicant, also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 5, 1998,because he did not want to further reduce the floor area of the proposed detached bedroom; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 7, 1998, and has considered testimony of the two appellants for their different reasons, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. 5-29 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 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 (A 46-98), the appeals, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. 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 it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to 8-30 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 3 maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Appeal approval. Kin Martin's appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions, including a modified Condition No. 3 which eliminates the loft level in the proposed detached bedroom: 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem,-that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the detached bedroom. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall run with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials. 7. SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The appeal of the applicant, William Tickell, of the Planning Commission's action is denied. 8-31 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 4 On motion of ._. __ ;seconded by . and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: passed and adopted this day of .1998... The foregoing resolution was _ Mayor Allen Settle .ATTEST: Kim Condon,.Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 8-32 �iii�I�I�1�I1l��IIIRII ,. �u►����uI1I ll�lllll II City Of SAn luis oBispo , 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 rendered on F 7 7— which consisted o the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) a.SE S��JCz7 7'0 1-71-e2AAr. 7X �vic of r96 A s przoGbs� �vs1 S s(y f 17;Y Cod112/7aosJ 77l+✓ c04aA---191Z_ �fY.gr�IC /T /YI 4.t7S o�4,FeWXXC o,� z �? f3 zS- t�v cs{ /S s!/rjS"ly cJ7rr O/J JI'Cq Al C-�f�T T �C-rte. /yI /,i5qU65ijT y� The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on -;5 Name/Department (Date) Appellant: �vIL�/An�l .¢2,c T L€LL 322?, (AIS Llv. Name/Title Mailing—Address (& Zipf� �DSlS lS'-Z?2Z Home Phone-*'�I Work Phone Representative: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for zt,/u' Date & Time Received: c: CityAttorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED Meg-/e4 JUN 0 5 lggg SLO C!:'°:, rL °rig ATTACHMENT 4 ��i��I��I�Nllllll� �I�►►��►III II�II� IiI Cit of SAn tliS OBISPO 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 -9,4t. rendered on 57- which 2which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) 0.S bca5c5 a fh rtrz k In L a5 Z ea-t-s. ^� �� �S n Qf S 16-F{ -�afZ.P�.Q„"`� .4 ka* r7 The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: Name/Department on (Date) Appellant: ;��„- ih I I Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) l 7�'l-537 Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Name/I itle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for 7-T- 98 Date & Time Received- C: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVE-6 Copy to the following department(s): .��7arGrs JUN. 0 21998 SLO CITY CL ql( Original iii City Clerk's Office 8-34 i i fo "afla GC TtCW 6 - 1 -98 lG To Whom It May Concern, My brother and I lived at 1535 '/z Carmel street from 1993 — 1994 and became concerned about the houses safety problems prior to moving out. I stayed in the back shed unit/room which was more like a large closet with no ea m_es. We tried several times to have landlord William Tickle fix obvious safety problems. After several complaints and no repairs we moved out. On one occasion the gas main broke and the fire department responded and shut off the main. One of the fireman 'said the house was definitely in violation and was unsafe because of: old wom wiring, no G.F.I. `s in the bathroom or kitchen, unsafe overgrown brush, and no fire alarms. Aside from all of the risky safety problems, the whole house was falling apart and no repairs were ever made. Cordially, i jo Jeremy Fissell RECEIVED JUN 03 1998 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8-35 li city of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 3, 1998 William Earl Tickell 3233 Davis Canyon Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: Administrative Use Permit 46-98: 1535 Carmel Street Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that a loft be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom. Dear Mr. Tickell: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 27, 1998 denied the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit, based on the. findings, and with the conditions contained in the attached resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. 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, Ronald G. Whisenand Development Review Manager . RW:mk Attachment: Resolution 5224-98 L:\pc\46-98-(d) ATTACHMENT 5 © The Cdy of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,pm9rams,and activities" 36 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5224-98 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 A 46-98, William E. Tickell,applicant/appellant. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED: A 46-98: Review of an appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that a loft be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1535 Carmel 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 proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 5-37 Resolution No. 5224-98 A 46-98 Page 2 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development. 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit. 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class I, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.0601. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health,.safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hearing Officer's decision denying the appeal of Administrative Use Permit A 46-98 be upheld and subject to the following modified conditions: 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem,that is one space behind the other. 8-38 Resolution No. 5224-98 A 46-98 Page 3 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The gross floor area shall not exceed 400 square feet. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom (total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall nun with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials. 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, Ewan, Marx, Senn, Whittlesey NOES: Commissioner; Ready REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jeffrey Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission MK\PC\.5224-98 8-39 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 anneal and uphold the action of the Hearing Officer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittles. 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 42. 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. ATTACHMENT 6 8-40 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 4 Associate Planner Ricci stated the whole structure is referred to as-a detached bedroom. With the 3,600 s.f of lot area, they are allowed an equivalent density of.99 units. She noted the applicant and staff have been discussing a similar project at the site for three years. There have been questions about the legal status of the rear building as a complete dwelling unit. Commissioner Ready asked how the tandem parking proposal with this application differs from Item#1. Associate Planner Ricci stated this is a one-bedroom house with a detached bedroom. Item #1 request had two different units on the same site. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if there's a separate bathroom in the detached bedroom. Associate Planner Ricci replied there's a bathroom downstairs. She explained that with the elimination of the loft,the applicant may be modifying the design of the roof. There were no further questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bill Tickell, applicant, is frustrated by what staff dictates is a bedroom. He demonstrated on the overhead the configuration of the dwelling and added that he owns the property in back. He had a foundation/skirting installed on front house. They're only proposing 100 s.f. be added to the total density of the project. This is an old neighborhood and this house was built in approximately 1920. The neighborhood is regenerating and he's doing his best to make this project something the city/neighborhood can be proud of. In order to make this a livable unit, it has to have some private areas. The sleeping loft serves as a small space without walls/separation from the rest of the house. 'The second-story requirements for the front house have been met. It's not his intent to rent this dwelling out as two separate units. Mr. Tickell has talked with legal counsel and feels Condition #4 is unfair and unnecessary. Future restrictions are unrealistic. He feels an asphalt or concrete driveway, Condition #2, will not be in keeping with the site. He suggests letting it exist as is with red rock or earth. Commissioner Ashbaugh feels Condition #4 is important and reasonable given the concern of it's historic rental use. Associate Planner Ricci stated there's specific language in the covenant agreement that addresses potential changes in the zoning requirements that may occur. 8-41 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 5 Commissioner Marx expressed a procedural concern that the appeal was filed for Condition#3 and now the applicant is requesting Conditions#2 and #4 be addressed. Assist. City Atty. Trujillo stated the Commission is limited to the consideration of the appeal; however,by majority vote the Commission may consider other items. There may be a potential noticing requirement problem and continuance is recommended. Chairman Senn explained to Mr. Tickell his options. Associate Planner Ricci stated Condition #2 provides for alternative surfaces/paving. This condition can be worked out with staff. She added the covenant agreement is standard with projects of this type and it does provide a clause that if there'are changes to the law in the future,that changes in conformance with the new laws can be considered. Commissioner Marx suggested tabling this item to allow staff to provide Mr. Tickell with a copy of the covenant agreement. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Marx moved to table Item #2 until Mr. Tickell has had an opportunity to review the covenant asreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey, Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. 3. 879 Morro Street: GPC 87-98: Review of the General Plan conformity determination for property acquisition for use as City offices or other public facilities; C- CH Zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended determining and reporting to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. There were no questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened. 5-42 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Howard Franklin, 891 Mill St., apt. owner, isn't concerned with city offices at this site, but is worried about what "or other public facilities" may be. He's concerned about protecting his property and does not support a parking lot at this site Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Whittlesey asked for staff comment on the H designation. Associate Planner Ricci stated the structure is not historic, but the location is in proximity to historic Chinatown. Commissioner Ready moved to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan as shown on Page 2 of the staff reportThe motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesey. Commissioner Marx is concerned about uses other than city office use. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Marx, Ewan, Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. 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. Commissioner Marx moved to bring tabled Item #2 back before the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES; Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey,.Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn NOES: None REFRAIN: None 8-43 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 7 The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. Chairman Senn reopened the public comment period. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Tickell reviewed the document referred to in Condition #4. Mr. Tickell replied yes. He's comfortable with the covenant agreement and requested the item proceed with hearing the appeal related to Condition#3. Chairman Senn asked Mr. Tickell the rental history of the property. Mr. Tickell stated the property has been rented primarily the last ten years as one rental unit. Chairman Senn had Mr. Tickell explain the renovation of the garage and asked for the estimated improvement costs. Mr. Tickell replied approximately $30,000 when complete. He noted although his concern regarding Condition #4 wasn't included in his written appeal, he did express before the Hearing Office that he wanted to consult with an attorney to discuss Condition #4. Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel, opposes the addition of the loft. The current structure is a 280 s.f tear-down shed with a utility sink. The applicant/appellant previous was denied a 450 s.f. studio. The loft is considered a separate bedroom because of the square footage. The addition would make this home much too large for the area. She's concerned about the rental history and is convinced the addition will be used as a separate unit. The main unit will be used as a two-bedroom unit and the garage will be a living area as well. She feels this is too big a project in a small area Commissioner Ashbaugh asked staff to clarify the square footage. Associate Planner Ricci calculated approximately 440 s.f. including the loft.. The plans show 395.5 on the main floor of the bedroom. Mr. Tickell disagreed with staffs calculations. Commissioner Ashbaugh believes the usable square footage of the ground floor and loft is closer to 400 s.f. than 500 s.f. 5-44 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 8 Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Marx moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan. Commissioner Marx feels it's appropriate to grant the tandem parking but not the loft. Commissioner Ewan agrees in principle to increasing densities, but is concerned that this is an over increase in density. He supports staff's recommendation to deny the loft. Commissioner Ashbaugh cannot support the motion. Commissioner Whittlesey is concerned about the size of the lot and the impact of the expanded dwelling units. She expressed parking, traffic, and neighborhood noise concerns. She feels the entire project should be looked at as to what is happening on this nonconforming lot. She feels there will be less impact with the removal of the loft. Commissioner Ready expressed no comments. Chairman Senn reviewed the General Plan and feels strongly about regenerating neighborhoods. He feels denial of this project may discourage future regeneration projects. He feels the Commission shouldn't be suspicious as to what somebody might do or how somebody might use their property. We have an enforcement dept. that deals with inappropriate situations/uses. It's not the Commission's job to base decisions on speculation. He feels it's best for the city to see rehab investments made to improve properties. AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ewan,and Whittlesey NOES: Commissioners Ready, Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn REFRAIN: None The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to modify Condition#3 by deleting the last sentence and replacing it with a sentence stating the proposed detached bedroom shall not exceed 400 s.f of gross floor area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Marx is concerned about the height and mass of the building in terms of the site/size of the lot. 8-45 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 9 Associate Planner Ricci stated typically for a 5' setback, the building height can't exceed 12' for a wall facing the property line. This is addressed in Condition#3. Commissioner Ready concurred with Chairman Senn. He could support a motion striking the last sentence of Condition #3 rather than adding a modification regarding gross floor area We do have enforcement program to deal with situations that would violate appropriate uses of the property. The Commission and staff discussed the results of increasing the setback and the necessary compliance with height requirements with the inclusion of the loft. Associate Planner Ricci noted there isn't any implication by approval of the plans that the Commission would also be approving a setback exception for the rear building. Chairman Senn cannot support the motion. He doesn't feel the Commission should decide the square footage or design the project. AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Marx, and Whittlesey NOES: Commissioners Ewan, Ready, and Chairman Senn REFRAIN: None The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. Commissioner Ready moved to strike the last sentence of Condition #3. The motion was seconded by Chairman Senn. Commissioner Marx isn't clear as to how much protection the ordinance gives the site from having something out of proportion to the site and neighborhood in terms of the building height in relationship to the property line. Commissioner Ashbaugh feels it inappropriate to dictate the design and interior arrangements of this detached bedroom. AYES: Commissioner Ready, Chairman Senn, and Commissioner Ashbaugh NOES: Commissioners Marx, Ewan, and Whittlesey REFRAIN: None The motion failed 3-3. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to replace the last sentence of Condition #3 with the sentence that the proposed detached bedroom shall not exceed 400 s f of total gross floor area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx 8-46 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1998 Page 10 AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Marx, Ewan, Whittlesey, and Chairman Senn_ NOES: Commissioner Ready ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-1. Commissioner Jeffrey was-absent. Commissioner Ready noted the 1.9' loft height may not be possible with the existing setbacks. Commissioner Marx request a copy of the covenant agreement for future reference.. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: } Develop..ment Review Manager. Whisenand presented the agenda forecasts for the meetings of June 10; 1998, June 4; 1998; and June 30, 1998. 5. Commission: Commissioner Ready requested retreat agenda item suggestions be forwarded/fazed .to him. Chairman Senn distributed copies of last year's adopted resolutions and an update of recent Council actions. ADJOURNMENT: There was no further business before the Commission and the.meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled :for June 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in Councif Chambers, City.Hall.. 8-47 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 2 BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PK MEETING DATE: May 27, 1998 FROM: Ron Vdhisenand,Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: A 46-98 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Cannel Street SUBJECT: Appeal of a condition of an approved administrative use permit requiring that a loft be eliminated from a proposed structure containing a detached bedroom for property located on the southwest side of Carmel Street,between Buchon and Islay Streets. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit as conditioned. BACKGROUND Situation A small one-bedroom house and a detached bedroom currently exist on the site. The applicant/appellant wants to add onto the front house and rebuild the rear building. On March 17, 1998, he applied for an administrative use permit to pursue the proposed project. The use permit was necessary for three different reasons: • to allow farther development of a non-conforming lot(the R-2 site is only 3,600 square feet); • to allow an addition to a non-conforming building - the front house is non-conforming in terms of current street and side yard setback requirements;and • to allow a setback reduction for the proposed addition to the front house-the building height closest to the property line will be 19 feet(a 19' building height requires a 8-foot side yard; a 4-foot side yard exists). Previous Review On May 1, 1998, the Hearing Officer approved the use permit, based on findings, and with six conditions. On May 1, 1998, an appeal of the decision was filed by the applicant on the basis of a contention with Condition No. 3. Specifically, the appellant disagrees with the requirement to eliminate the loft space from the rear building (detached bedroom). Appeals of the Hearing Officer's actions are considered by the Planning Commission. Data Summary Address: 1535 Carmel Street ATTACHMENT 7 8'48 A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit) Page 2 Applicant/Appellant: William Earl Tickell Zoning: Medium-Density Residential(R-2) General Plan: Medium-Density Residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt under Section 15302., Class 2, Replacement br Reconstruction,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 fairly flat site contains 3,600 square feet and is developed with a small house, detached garage and a small shed-like building that has been used over the years as living space. It is located in the Old Town neighborhood and surrounded by other properties that are developed with houses and apartments. Project Description Submitted plans show that a sleeping loft will be added to the front house (currently a storage area). To maintain the house as a one-bedroom unit, a portion of the wall in the existing downstairs bedroom is proposed to be removed. An existing 280 square-foot building behind the house, used since the 1940s as a detached bedroom, is-proposed to be removed. In its place, the applicant wants to build a 395.5 square- foot building. Floor plans for the rear building show sitting and dressing room areas, a laundry room,and a bathroom on the ground floor with a sleeping loft above. EVALUATION s Planning staff has been discussing potential changes to the site with the applicant for several years. Attached to this report is a letter from Planning staff outlining conclusions made on September 13, 1995 regarding the site 7s development potential. The property as developed is already at its maximum allowed density (0.99 equivalent density units). The one-bedroom front house along with the detached bedroom consist of a total of two bedrooms which has an equivalent density of 1.0. Therefore, staff earlier determined that initially submitted plans showing the back building as a separate dwelling unit(studio apartment with floor area of 450 square feet or less) would not be consistent with allowed density. A one- bedroom house and a studio would have an equivalent density of 1.16 (0.66+0.50= 1.16; 1.16> 0.99). Plans were changed by the applicant to show a loft addition to the front house and the rear building as a detached bedroom. While this exceeds the maximum allowable density of the site 8-49 A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit) Page 3 by 0.01, this level of development is consistent with the historical density of the site. The rear building was also moved to comply with the minimum setback requirement of 5 feet. Planning staff was satisfied with the revised plans and recommended approval of the use permit with conditions including the provision of a driveway to City standards, filing of a covenant agreement acknowledging allowed site density, provision of a building easement to maintain 10 feet between the front house and the adjacent property to the southeast, and the elimination of the loft level from the detached bedroom. Appellant's Position The appellant submitted a statement received 5-1-98 that is attached to this report. The statement does not dispute the allowed density, but objects to the removal of the loft in the rear detached bedroom building. He cites the space restrictions of the site as a reason that he proposing a taller building with a loft. In conclusion, the appellant feels that planning staff is unreasonable in requiring that the loft be eliminated from the rear building. StaWs Analysis Planning staff feels that its evaluation and judgment on the project has been both fair and reasonable. The rear building is substandard and has not been used as living space in over a year. The legitimacy of this building for use as living area has been questioned and the full extent of facilities such as sanitation and cooking areas serving it historically is not completely known. Staff has discussed other alternatives with the applicant to allow him to further develop the site, One idea, a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property to the southeast that he also owns, is not feasible since existing development at that site already exceeds maximum allowed density. Therefore, staff felt that the revised project was the best solution to meet the applicant's needs and to comply with property development standards. As indicated in the attached minutes from the 5-1-98 administrative hearing, the extent of the rear building's floor plan was questioned by staff and a project neighbor. The need for a separate sleeping loft area in a detached bedroom was especially scrutinized. An almost 400 square-foot building containing sitting,dressing,sleeping and laundry facilities is of a scale and intensity that goes beyond the intent of a detached bedroom. The condition requiring the removal of the sleeping loft is in keeping with the limitations placed on other separated living areas of single- family houses to comply with density restrictions. Conclusion The Hearing Officer approved the requested use permit to enable the applicant to pursue his project The only issue that the appellant has with that approval is the contested Condition No. 3 requiring the elimination of the loft. Commission review of the appeal should focus on this issue. 8-50 A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit) Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the appeal, thereby modifying Condition No. 3 to eliminate the second sentence. The first sentence needs to be retained to assure that the taller building fully complies with setback requirements. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants/appellants. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Fire Department and Building Division noted previous code issues with the rear structure in the past. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit, based on the following findings, and with the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-confomiing structures,with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non-conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301.,Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. 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 it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easege5to A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit) Page 5 maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard 9. No significant fire protection,emergency access,privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. Conditions 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with . setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the detached bedroom. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom(total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk- Recorder's office and shall run with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineer's scale,landscaping proposals,and proposed driveway materials. g-52 A 46-98 (Tickell Use Permit) Page 6 Attached: Vicinity map Project plans Memo dated 9-13-95 regarding proposed improvements to buildings Appeal letter from William Tickell dated 5-1=98 54-98 administrative hearing action letter&minutes use4146-98(rickell PC report) 8-53 _... — — M1 i X01 '�/•'• �i M1 •5 O , p P i � M1 'ley. o .1F �G �� �.���' a• � O Y ,i, rfF!!'r •a ♦ ' �''. �e a O ww � �•A 3 r�••w � ` t o 0 i fa i IC.VA tp w6 01,10 M1 YL .Ca9•C2 ago >b alf alb 1"1IGIi d STREET LL f !7 2"-"1 a5 t" 0.•h 9 2! S4 S f'F! 1-n-515 301 Al2D1 -El 11 TIP .DS I El ` F �� m .e.a-.tuaw• 161 •• ' � � a 0 41 23�i bGa•4 , LQ• ♦•JJI wo , �J I ❑ O M1 4Yli 9 iO.K YJS 1if J!O M �il\•�.Wa.• SAf11®ERGO�K STREE`� �_ rt 2SI.n m ! El 0 o251 � El C3 a � Q A' ��/ MAP /� n� /� Y uV499' ! VICINI T 1 !YlAP 46 -98 NORTH 135 CARMEL ffAi C A R M E L S TRE: El' -T-7- rig rg !; a I, I � I • oa Ig U I t I — O C:3 N I r' I � J 1 N i Ll- _ oa � J I I r I{ z - L �. F I I ! � I I !I 4 5 I: J �1r^\ V pp a s Oc e 'no A r Op fe m m" 8-55 y� e 1E ------------p �g � _z � a ne i i N W UI > In y 8 A �---6_ -- 9N A P rl PY r r : r _ N I r, k-mmmim 1 a m z Z _ R i .a ep Ul > DDZI a Z a A r - O 14 - 03 lI N R 'U --- —�. r O e — r N ' 4 O M N is _ o aaewK 'P To I Top Im s - aa.mr pp a a 8-56 September 13, 1995 MOSVO WILLIAM EARL, TICKELL, AR.CHITE... i TO: Address File for 1535 Carmel 805-595-2322 FROM: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner 3233 Davis Canyon,Road Off See Canyon Road SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to Buildings San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1535 Carmel: Currently is an existing one-bedroom house. Owner would like to add new perimeter foundation and "pop-up" roof about 3 feet to add a sleeping loft. The existing bedroom would be converted into a den or office by opening up the wall to other living areas. Conclusion: Proposed changes in general look acceptable. Would ask for a covenant agreement to be recorded that the frod unit is used as a 1-bedroom house. The site has a maximum density of 0.99 equivalent units. 15351/2 Carmel: Existing detached bedroom that has been used for residential purposes since at least the 1940s, but does not contain a kitchen or bathroom. Not considered a dwelling unit by definition in the zoning regulations. Owner would like to add bathroom, install new perimeter foundation, provide new roof and create a second-story loft for sleeping. Conclusion: No evidence that the unit has been anything other than a detached bedroom in recent history (least 6 months). Therefore, proposed changes other than new roof and foundation cannot be pursued since the size of the lot would.not allow a studio addition. Changes to structure would need to be consistent with the 50% of replacement cost rule for nonconforming structures. L+ 6�5m Suggested that there may be a possibility of a lot line adjustment with adjacent property that the property owner also owns. The idea would be .that the project site's area.could be increased to allow for conforming density (0.66 + 0.50 = 1.16- allowing a 1-bedroom house and a studio). Parking: Two spaces would be required at minimum - one for each unit. The existing garage could be removed. - Planning Process: An administrative use permit to allow additions to units would be required -further development of a nonconforming lot and possibly, as conforming additions to nonconforming structures. 5-57 �1 A,9 G' cnm m 01.1 c � RECENED MAY 1 1998 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEV§LO�JNT IAcitf oposemis o�,sy 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 4, 1998 William Tickell 3233 Davis Canyon Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl.A 46798 1535 Carmel Street Dear Mr. Tickell: On Friday, May 1, 1998, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow further development of a non-conforming lot, to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure (main house), and to allow reduced side yard from 8 feet to 4 feet at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in character with the type and scale of surrounding development. 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non- conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit 5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. 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 it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 8-59 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. A 46-98 Page 2 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons, and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. Conditions 1. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. - 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the detached bedroom. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom (total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall run with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8_60 A 46-98 Page 3 6.. Plans submitted for the required. minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineers scale., landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials. My decision isfinal 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. Sincerely, &Ronadisenand Hearing Officer by 8-61 DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY MAY 1, 1998 1535 Carmel Street. Use Permit Appl. A 46-98; Request to allow further development of a non-conforming lot; to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure (main house), and to allow reduced side yard from 8 feet to 4 feet; R-2 zone; William Tickell, applicant. Pam Ricci presented the staff report, noting that for several years, Mr. Tickell has been wanting to upgrade the two buildings on the site. Although this appears to be a fairly small and seemingly simple project, it involves a number of different requests such as further development of a non-conforming lot because the lot is only 3600 square feet. A second component of this request is the loft addition proposed to the front house which is non-conforming because it is only four feet from the side property line. Also requested is a side yard reduction which would make the -new addition to the front house conforming. Ms. Ricci explained that the property, as it is currently developed with a one-bedroom house and detached bedroom, is at its maximum density. She noted that since the last hearing which was continued, the plans have been modified to include moving the rear detached bedroom building so that it is five feet from the property line. She also noted that planning staff had determined that, because of the density issues, the detached building could not be a separate studio apartment with a bathroom and kitchen, so this plan has been modified to show living space and a bathroom, with the kitchen eliminated. It was clarified that the City recognizes this rear structure as a detached bedroom, not a separate unit. Because of the number of bedrooms on the site, converting the detached bedroom to a studio or another one-bedroom unit would cause the allowed density for the property to be exceeded. Ms. Ricci indicated that Mr. Tickell had considered a lot line adjustment with the property on the comer to make the subject property conforming, but it was determined that the comer property was already over the density limits, so it was not a viable alternative. Ms. Ricci noted that staff supports the revised project, based on 11 findings and six conditions, which she outlined. 8-62 The public hearing was opened. William Tickell, applicant, spoke in support of this request. He was concerned with the requirement that the surface of the driveway be paved and felt it should not apply in this case, noting there is very little percolation on the site as it is, and a drainage problem exists between the neighbor on the downside and his property. He was concerned with controlling runoff. Mr. Whisenand explained that alternative paving was available and a number of options can be considered to resolve the runoff issues. He noted that historically city-wide, porous pavers have been proven to be quite successful in resolving runoff issues. Mr. Tickell asked if different sizes of gravel was an option, but Mr. Whisenand felt that something more permanent, with a durable, dust-free surface was in order, such as a paver or paving strips. He felt that tire strips might be an alternative to full paving. Mr. Tickell explained that his attorney is reviewing the required covenant agreement, and noted that the building in the back has been used in the past, and is recorded as having been used in the past as a separate residence, so that may be an issue that will be pursued. Mr. Whisenand asked how long it has been since someone has lived in the back building as a separate residence. Mr. Tickell responded that it has been at least one year, and that he removed the kitchen area and carpeting in anticipation of this project. He also objected to staffs recommendation that the loft be removed from the rear unit. Kim Martin, 1521 Carmel Street, said she lives next-door to the property on the downhill side (below the driveway), and has lived at this address for sic years. She explained that in the past, a large number of people have lived there, sometimes more than four people. She said she had concerns with density, and the fact that renters and students are adept at fitting as many people in a unit as they can. Ms. Martin felt that if the back unit is really considered a separate bedroom, it would not need a stairwell and sleeping loft and a washer/dryer hookup. She felt that a tenant could rent a refrigerator and put in a hot plate and have a nice small place to five. She reiterated that if .it were a separate bedroom, the common areas of the main house should be used for any sort of activity such as the sitting room, washer/dryer, etc. Ms. Martin also had concerns with the loft addition to the front house. She said a loft currently exists, just underneath the roof which is being used as a bedroom. She felt that the loft in the front house is acceptable, but also felt it would be used as an additional bedroom. She commented that the plans note there is a wall dividing the loft which looks like a fairly even division, denoted as 'storage with windows' and the other as loft/bedroom. Her concern was the possible addition of another bedroom. She said she had no problem with the addition of one sleeping area. 8-63 In response to a question from Ron Whisenand, Mr. Tickell said there is only one water meter for both buildings. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Whisenand noted that historically it appears that there has been a sleeping area in the back unit, but no indication of an active "separate unit" had been found. He encouraged Mr. Tickell to submit any proof of an active separate unit that his attorney or he may locate. Mr. Whisenand explained that a non-conforming uses ceases.after a given period of time (typically six months) and, if indeed a legal unit in the back exists, the City would not want to take it away. Pam Ricci expressed the importance of the non-conforming status of the structure which is closer to the property line, and that when it is demolished to accommodate the new building, it must be brought into compliance. Ron Whisenand agreed with staffs recommendation regarding the elimination of the loft in the rear building because it is getting away from the intent of the non-conforming use regulations that are in place. Based on this information, he approved the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed addition to the main house is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 17.14 of the zoning regulations which allows minor conforming additions to non-conforming structures, with the recordation of a easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures on adjoining properties. 2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing house. 3. The existing house with the proposed addition and the new detached bedroom is in characterwith the type and scale of surrounding development 4. The proposed changes to site are appropriate as further development of a non- conforming parcel and buildings will conform with the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements with the approval of this use permit S. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301., Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. The tandem parking proposed at this site can meet the criteria for tandem parking contained in Section 17.16.060 1. of the zoning regulations as it will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of a designated dwelling. 8-64 7. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity, with the recordation of the easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the house and any buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard. 9. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction. 10. The exception is of a minor nature and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property. 11. The 10-foot separation easement is consistent with goals of the Uniform Building Code to protect fire safety, and the purpose of yards defined in the City's Zoning Regulations to maintain adequate distance between buildings on adjacent properties for aesthetic and solar access reasons,and to create a regular pattern of building masses in neighborhoods. Conditions L. Two parking spaces shall be provided to City standards to serve the house. The required parking spaces may be developed in tandem, that is one space behind the other. 2. The project driveway shall be developed with an all-weather surface, such as asphalt or concrete. Alternative paving may be utilized consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The rear building containing the proposed detached bedroom shall fully comply with setback standards for other yards contained in Table 3 of Section 17.16.020 of the City's zoning regulations. The loft level shall be eliminated from the structure containing the detached bedroom. 4. 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 a single one-bedroom dwelling unit with a detached bedroom (total of two bedrooms on site). This agreement shall be recorded in the County Clerk-Recorder's office and shall run with the land. 5. The applicant shall obtain an easement to maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the existing main house with addition and buildings on the adjacent property to the southeast. 8-65 6. Plans submitted for the required minor or incidental architectural review process shall include elevations of all four sides of both buildings to a standard architect's or engineers scale, landscaping proposals, and proposed driveway materials. Ron Whisenand explained that this decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days. He also encouraged Mr. Tickell to have his attorney supply.the City with any information that would provide some clarification as to the status of the back building. 8-66 council mgmb4o. - �I aGEnba Repout ®N - - CITY OF SAN LU I' S OBI SPO FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk SUBJECT: MINUTES OF: September 1, 1999 September 21, 1999 October 5, 1999 r C1-1