HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1988, 1 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A PROPOSAL TO ADD THREE APARTMENTS TO A SITE WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MURRAY STREET NEAR HATHWAY (1275 MURRAY STREET; ARC 87-219). Cl� MEETNG DATE:
Of San is OBISPO
5-3-88
ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT:Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission decision denying a proposal to add
three apartments to a site with an existing house, on the south side of Murray
Street near Hathway (1275 Murray Street; ARC 87-219).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Uphold or deny the appeal, as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The applicant originally submitted somewhat different plans for this site, requesting
"minor/incidental" staff review. Staff determined that the project would more
appropriately be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Staff also
suggested reducing the apparent height and mass of the building, making the addition more
compatible with the existing house, modifying several features to meet code requirements,
and presenting more complete plans. After one revision and more discussion with staff,
the applicant submitted revised plans, which responded to several staff suggestions,
requesting final approval. Staff recommended approval subject to several further changes
to reduce the height and mass of the building and improve some design details.
On April 4, the ARC considered the project. Commissioners did not support the' project as
proposed, but thought plans revised to address commission concerns could be approved.
Commissioners noted lack of usable open space, intrusion of a parking space in the front
yard, excessive roof height, lack of planting and pedestrian space along the driveway,
and the general impression that the site would be overbuilt. A motion was made to
continue action with direction to the applicant. The applicant then said he would prefer
a denial, which could be appealed, to further revisions. The ARC voted unanimously to
deny the project, finding that it did not meet architectural guidelines concerning
neighborhood compatibility and usable open space on the site.
[Staff would note that the approved project which the appellant refers to in his appeal
statement as being identical to his request differed in several ways. It was in an R-4
zone (rather than R-3), had a low hip roof (rather than a steeper gable), included six
studio apartments (rather than a studio and two large one-bedroom apartments), had a lot
area of 8,250 sq. ft. (vs. 6,250), employed a common driveway with neighboring
apartments, and had all parking screened from the street by buildings.]
The council may uphold or deny the appeal or refer the application back to the ARC.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review as a single structure with
four or fewer dwellings. Staff expects no significant environmental, fiscal, or service
impacts from denial, approval of the proposed project, or approval of a project revised
as directed by the ARC.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION
If the council takes no action, the action of the ARC will remain in effect. If the
council does not uphold the appeal and the applicant wants to pursue the project, he will
have to submit a new application and revised plans.
Attached: Staff report to ARC; ARC minutes, 4-4-88
Enclosed: Plans gm2/arc8721
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING A PROPOSAL TO ADD THREE APARTMENTS TO A SITE
WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 1275 MURRAY STREET (ARC 87-219)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested architectural approval of a proposal to add three
apartments to a site with an existing house at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project at its April 4,
1988, meeting and denied the project based on the finding that the project did not meet
architectural guidelines concerning neighborhood compatibility and usable open space on
the site; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo (1) finds that the
project does not comply with architectural guidelines concerning neighborhood
compatibility and usable open spaces on the site; and (2) resolves to deny the appeal and
uphold the action of the Architectural Review Commission.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
U
City A ministrative Officer
. /
City t orney
Community Development Director
/-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING A PROPOSAL TO ADD THREE APARTMENTS TO A SITE
WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 1275 MURRAY STREET (ARC 87-219)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested architectural approval of a proposal to add three
apartments to a site with an existing house at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project at its April 4,
1988, meeting and denied the project based on the finding that the project did not meet
architectural guidelines concerning neighborhood compatibility and usable open space on
the site; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo (1) finds that the
project does comply with architectural guidelines concerning neighborhood compatibility
and usable open space on the site; and (2) resolves to uphold the appeal and grant final
approval to the project with staff to approve details of fencing and screen wall,
planting, trash enclosure, and outdoor lighting.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was pas"sed ind adopted this day of
1988.
- ---- -Mayo; - ------- ..
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
City torney
Community Development Director
1li`IyIII�NIIII�I��11IIIIlllill� VEEcity of SBpDEPMNT
_ STMF REPORT
Fl. Architectural Review Commission MEETING DATE April 4, 1988
GICM
BY Glen Matteson, Associate Planner ITEM NO,
6
PROJECT ADDRESS 1275 Murray Street FILE NO. ARC 87-219
SUBJECT:
Add three apartments to a site with an existing house, on the south side of Murray Street
near Hathway.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval with staff to approve any of the suggested building design revisions
which the commission supports and with staff to approve details of fencing and screening,
landscaping, trash enclosure, and lighting.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant originally submitted somewhat different plans for this site, requesting
"minor/incidental" staff review. Staff determined that the project would more
appropriately be reviewed by the ARC. Staff also suggested reducing the apparent height
and mass of the bulding, making the addition more compatible with the existing house,
modifying several features to meet code requirements, and presenting more complete
plans. After one revision and more discussion with staff, the applicant submitted the
enclosed set of plans, which respond to several staff suggestions, requesting final
approval.
Data Summary
Applicant/owner: Douglas Michie
Designer: George F. Garcia
Zoning: R-3
Land Use Element map: medium-high-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt as a small structure
ARC action deadline: Not established until plans for final approval certified complete
Site Description
The nearly level, 6,250-square-foot site is occupied by an existing single-story,
wood-frame house with detached garage. Several mature trees grow on the site (shown on
plans). The neighborhood includes apartments (generally to the north), houses where
apartment additions have been approved (lot to the east), and individual houses (to the
south). The apartments include a wide range of scales and architectural styles.
Proiect Description
The existing garage and three trees would be removed. The roof of the existing house
would be rebuilt to match the desired lines for the roof of the new apartments, to be
attached to the rear of the house. The apartments, with horizontal siding and
composition shingle roof, would be built over parking spaces. One parking space would be
added at the front of the house. Proposed colors are light blue siding, white trim, and
medium gray roof. Replacement trees would be planted. /_
ARC 87-219
Page 2
Evaluation
A. Existing Building
Staff believes the existing garage is not architecturally, historically, or culturally
significant, and may be demolished. Likewise, the significanse of the existing house and
neighborhood do not warrant referral of the project to the Cultural Heritage Commission.
B. Site Plan/Building Form
The general plan supports development of higher-density housing at this location, within
walking distance of Cal Poly. Staff's primary concerns are compatibility with
neighboring low-density development (appearance and overlook) and preservation of the
residential street character fostered by the remaining houses on this block. In staff's
view, density allowed by zoning, lot size and shape, and desire to retain the existing
house enable few basic design alternatives. The project meets basic zoning standards of
density, height, coverage, setbacks, and parking. The absense of windows on the south
elevation minimizes overlook concerns.
However, staff thinks the project's visual impact could be further reduced by one or more
of these:
1. Reducing the pitch of the roof.
2. Using a simple hip roof rather than the proposed "Dutch gable."
3. Deleting the study rooms, thereby shortening the building. (The southern
parking space would then be outside the building.) This approach would also
eliminate the awkward appearing "dog-leg" support at the southwest corner of the
building.
C. Details
1. The landscape plan does not indicate type or size of new trees. Staff suggests
tall, columnar trees which would provide seasonal color, with species and size
to be approved by staff when construction plans are prepared.
2. Ivy may be a maintenance problem if it climbs the building wall. Staff suggests
a non-climbing, low-profile, low-maintenance groundcover for the unused and
rarely seen side and rear setback areas (such as bark or gravel mulch with
swordfern or Pachysandra terminalis).
3. Shrubs in front of the parking screen wall would be desirable.
4. Outdoor lighting details are not shown. Staff suggests low-intensity,
low-profile light stands in front and "soffit" or ceiling lights for the rear
parking area.
5. Screen fence details are not shown. Staff suggests siding and trim to match the
building.
ARC 87-219
Page 3
6. There is no ideal place for the trash enclosure. Staff would prefer use of
"green wheelers" in a project of this size, stored in the side yard or in the
stairway/storage area, to avoid the noise and driveway wear that will result
from a dumpster and the intrusion of a large trash enclosure next to the house.
ALTERNATIVES
The ARC may grant schematic approval, indicating that site plan and building form are
acceptable, but details must return before final approval. The commission may grant
final approval. Final approval may include revisions to details to be approved by
staff. The commission may deny the application upon finding that it does not comply with
architectural guidelines. The commission may continue action, with direction to
applicant and staff.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
The commission has not previously considered this application. In February, the
commission approved a duplex apartment addition for the neighboring lot to the east.
That project included a two-story, stucco building separated from the existing house by
three parking spaces, with a separate driveway on Hathway Avenue. The building appeared
more compact and vertical than the project under consideration, but its maximum height
was two feet lower.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works
There is a recognized water resource deficiency which is being addressed by the City
Council. At the present, construction projects are being processed in a normal manner.
However, restrictions on building permits may be imposed at any time. These restrictions
may delay or preclude the approval of projects for construction and/or the issuance of
building permits in the future.
Fire
Access and hydrant locations are adequate, but fire-flow is deficient for a building of
this type and size (1,085 gallons per minute available vs. 2,500 gpm required). This
deficiency may be mitigated by installing an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system
(per NFPA 13) or, if a two-hour fire wall (per UBC) is provided, by installing a
residential-type sprinkler system (per NFPA 13-D).
RECOMMENDATION
Determine that the existing garage to be demolished is not architecturally, culturally,
or historically significant.
Grant final approval with staff to approve:
1. Any of the suggested building design revisions (lower roof, hip roof, shorter
building) which the commission supports.
ARC 87-219
Page 4
2. Details of:
A. Property-line fencing and screen wall for front-yard parking space;
B. Planting plan, including alternate groundcover, specific trees, and shrub
planting in front of the screen wall;
C. Trash enclosure design or alternate location;
D. Outdoor lighting
Enclosed: plans
Available at meeting: color board
gm2/arc87219
/- 9
0 m .
0, 0
O — '
LQ
Arc'Tpt:N gq� (�J �JKis iv W1
A,aac-6 i
W-77
FRL q' I:
n JNIT
APIVtTMGN-mq
V L YM,TS 1 Mu"Al •-Vk t APT`
a . ` ay AC lG 40 o
ARG 79.67 N5 e�0-`• vow
ER
"-w 4
O se-ry (�I
� A B D: ;;NIPS
� � �_� hTrrreNT Huts+ING3 a
� U mumI ,
�p o �-
ARC 74,6
u•nx3 E
` :KS 270 9 Y A•`
00-
s
� — WAkre,.
IlL 77
O I � I
ARC 41
� �eri•$9
3
' .t „ .n.. AVENU ...... AA-BSOW
MURRAY. Zte7 /Z7
N
601,41-06
/ uiv8o r O
O O , YOS92 l O ; O O O Z
O � _ h
A_G A-D WO
=oe
P F
Lq
I _
h '
Z h <
Tn
O O a = a 7r- p '
-- A o -
_ ,vee TO.$8
0 TT
1-9-R
cityIIA II of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of QrLctjj IC rTu"L- A.FV•e.Lj c.9•,,,, sc o+j rendered
on Apn_,� which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
Dcs gN ,s ���,�a-1 4� �.a t o-Pp ec� o•� 8`l Amc- %-k-t 31 ER 6( -
Czac,ien- �. ee�-� QP�euecQ 3 �ieafis CA•qoO
1I
aPP^g'� 0A o� tl.. s
aFfew Nees s, x r--d,,-SLS vnE -•-j�es Cessk -) b,� -++L e /�
d t �CPn,C'.+iC AS,q.� 0Y J'sc,.JSs rV.
T �ee�V' '-a-4 {LR AQC- -c.T, aJ re o-h) .
� rn. r"- _ r-xo
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellan
C . 00 RECEIVE 0 me/Title
APR 13 9988
arycLmx Representative
SAN uusOSSM.cA
pv �v�c Gr8 C,ayvcos � S3g3D
Address
99S - 3�a �7
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cal da ed for: i y%' Copy to City Administrative Officer
2. IQLI
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
Draft ARC Minutes
April 4, 1988
6. ARC 87-219: 1275 Murray Street; add 3-unit apartment to site with existing house;
R-3 zone; schematic review.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval
with staff to approve any of the suggested building design revisions which the commission
supports and with staff to approve details of fencing and screening, landscaping, trash
enclosure, and lighting.
Douglas Michie, applicant, responded to the staff report, and felt that the units were
not overly large and the project was unobtrusive in terms of the neighborhood. He
indicated he would be adding trees to replace those being removed. He also indicated
that the height of Building 1 has been reduced and the loft areas have been removed.
Commr. Bradford would like to see the parking space in front of the building eliminated
if possible. She also wanted the height of the new building's roof scaled down.
Commr. Jones had problems with the studies and the number of proposed parking spaces in
relationship to the context of the neighborhood. He thought the parking space makes
accessing the front unit difficult. He preferred to see a Dutch gable over the simple
roof hip. He felt there would be a benefit from providing storage areas.
Commr. Baur liked the approach to incorporate the front house into the rear building
design. He was concerned with the lack of usable open space. He could not support the
parking space in front of the building.
Commr. Gates suggested eliminating the studies and wanted to see more details on
lighting.
Commr. Starr felt the entry to the studio was awkward. He agreed that waste wheelers
could be used.
Commr. Morris felt the lot was overbuilt and could not support the parking space in
front. He liked the Dutch gables. He was concerned about the lack of open space and the
small amount of landscaping. He wanted the cedar tee in front maintained, which was not
shown on the plans.
Commr. Cooper noted there was no community open space and no staging area since the
stairs opened up right to the driveway. He wanted to see landscaping provided along the
westerly edge of the driveway.
Commr. Morris moved for a continuance with direction to provide more open space and
landscaping and shortening of the building.
Commr. Baur seconded the motion.
Mr. Michie indicated he would rather have the project denied than a continuance granted
so he could appeal the decision to the City Council.
Draft ARC Minutes
April 4, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Morris withdrew the motion; Commr. Baur withdrew the second.
Commr. Morris moved to deny the project based on the overbuilding of the site (lack of
usable open space and landscaping and the need to locate one of the required parking
spaces in front of the existing house) and concerns for neighborhood compatibility.
Commr. Starr seconded the motion.
AYES: Morris, Starr, Baur, Jones, Gates, Bradford, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
/-/3