Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/29/1991, 1 - JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGMEETING DATE: {illli� "allillji city Of San Luis OB�sPO tENTI COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared by Ken Bruce, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Joint City Council /Architectural Review Commission Meeting CAO RECOMMENDATION: City Council and Architectural Review Commission should review and discuss the issues of mutual interest and take action as appropriate. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Appeals of Architectural Review Commission Actions. Appeals of ARC actions are heard by the City Council. The council and commission have expressed their concerns over the increasing number of appeals filed. In 1990, there were eleven appeals of ARC actions. All but two were filed by the applicants; one appeal was filed by the Cultural Heritage Committee and one appeal was filed by neighbors. Of the eleven appeals, six were upheld by the council, thus overturning the ARC's action. The commission is concerned that many times the council is presented with a project by the applicant that has changed from the time the ARC has acted on it; that design issues such as colors, materials, details, and landscaping have changed so that less attention is given to them; and that council- approved projects are not referred back to the commission to implement design issues. Commission actions have generated the appearance that sometimes the commission does not follow council direction or council policy. 2. Interpretation of Hillside Development Standards. The council and commission feel the adopted hillside development standards are not being interpreted with consistency. These standards were adopted October 16, 1984, as part of the general plan Land Use Element. The hillside development standards are: (a) Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform to the slope of the hill and keep a low profile. The use of prominent stem walls and foundation piers should be avoided. (b) Grading on individual lots should be minimized. Houses should gen rally be built close to the street. The grading of visible driveways should be minimized. (c) Landscaping which is visually compatible with the existing hillside vegetation should be used to screen building foundations and provide a E C E 0 V E D landscaped transition between housing areas and adjacent open space. JAN 2 d 1991 CTTY CLEHk ,14 LUIS CBISPO. cA ������� ti��Id�IIIIIIIlI�11P ° °�IIIIIII city of San Luis OBISpo a COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT (d) The color and texture of building materials should blend as much as possible with the natural landscape and avoid the creation of high - contrast situations. 3. Interpretation of Creek Setback Policies. The council and commission have expressed concern that setbacks from creeks are not being required or, when required are being applied without consistency. There is no council- adopted policy on creek setbacks. See attached administrative policy for creek setbacks. 4. CouncilfCommission Communications. The ARC feels that improved communication with the council is needed. How can communication be improved? What can the commission do? What can the council do? The limited communications with individual councilmembers and commissioners is conflicting much of the time. The ARC feels that communications with the council is now taking place through the appeal process and, thus, becomes awkward, inappropriate, and ineffectual. ��iu�► i►►►►► �ii�i�lllllllll���l������i ►��I►►11 I��II City O SAn luiS OBISPO 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 October 20, 1988 To: Planners From: Mike M Subject: Draft administrative creek policy Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be varied from when the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through alternative approaches. 1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved or enhanced). In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into. Exceptions could include: a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across); b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined or culverted drains; c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation, reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy. In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long -range Planner should be consulted before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if there is any significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be consulted, too. 2. New structures including parking lots should generally be set back at least 20 feet from the top of bank. "Top of bank" means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest most step is the top of bank, not any intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director, Principal Planner or Long -range Planner should be consulted to help determine a reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100 -year flood line.) / -3 Draft Creek Policy Page 2 A. Greater setbacks may be required if 1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20 -foot line; 2. a setback line has been adopted or proposed by Public Works which is farther from the bank; 3. the 100 -year flood plain extends beyond the 20 -foot line. B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if: 1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor or likely to be part of the urban trails system; 2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some exception is impossible; 3. the lot is a small inf ill site where a clear pattern of lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of the lot along the creek. In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director and Principal Planner or Long -range Planner should be consulted. 3. If the site is considered by the Long -range Planner to be a possible link in the urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access should be required as a condition of any discretionary permit. 4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a condition of approval of any discretionary permit. 5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as a condition of approval for any discretionary permit. 6. Sites with creeks are considered to be "sensitive sites" for architectural review purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review should be taken in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the guidelines above are met; if they are not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that the guidelines be followed. /-`i January 3, 1991 city of sAn luis oBispici 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 TO: Management Team VIA John Dunn, CA� FROM: Glen Matteson, ate Planner (165) SUBJECT: Margarita- Garcia Specific Plan At the request of RRM Design Group, we are scheduling a site tour on January 24, 1991, from 1:30 to about 4:30 p.m. The City Council, Planning Commission, and public are invited. This will be an opportunity to see this large site and its surroundings. A "tour guide" from RRM is forthcoming. (If it's raining, the tour will be rescheduled.) The project site extends from the Margarita Avenue area to Broad Street, and may be planned for about 700 dwellings and some nonresidential uses. If the specific plan is approved and resources are available, development is likely to occur from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's. Preparation of the specific plan will involve issues of land use, parks and open space, water and sewer service, circulation, transit, drainage, airport compatibility, emergency services, schools, and financing of public facilities, as we figure out how we want this. new neighborhood to develop. Each department with an interest in this project should have a representative on the site tour. Also, on January 31, the Margarita- Garcia planning team will meet in the planning conference room to discuss initial concepts for the specific plan. So far, this team has consisted of Glen Matteson and Pam Ricci from planning, Jerry Kenny from engineering, and Erik Justesen and Russ Lambert from RRM. We are working under a "guidance package" approved by the City Council in May 1990. Other departments are invited to have representatives on this team. We intend generally to meet twice a month on Thursday mornings. copies:Russ Lambert, RRM Mike Draze, County Planning Del Sims, SLCUSD CITY OF MORRO BAY TEL :805- 772 -7329 Jan 28.91 11:05 No.004 P.02 City Of Morro Bay City Council Agenda Misrinn stawnlom The City of Morro play is dedicated In the pi eservation and enhancement of the quality of life. which we all enjoy. We are enmminad to this pntrivorc and will providc a level or municipal service consistent and responsive to our public and its needs. FRIECEIVEI14 SPECIAL MEETING - :33 JANUARY 1991 JAN 2 e1991 MORRO BAY /SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCILS VETERANS MEMORIAL IIALL - 7:00 P.M. r,my CLERK 209 SURF ST., MORRO BAY, CA SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA ROLL CALL PUBLIC CnMME;N'T' PERIOD - Members of the audience wishing to- address the Council on City business matters (other than Public Hearings items under Section D) may do so at this time. When recognized by the Mayor, p1case come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Comments should normally be limited to three minutes. Ii. PUBLIC REPORTS D -1 DESALINATION PROJECT - SAN LUIS OBISPO STAFF- • PROJECT SUMMARY /OVERVIEW (MONTGOMERY ENCINEERS) ♦ TIMEFRAMF. FOR DECISIONMAKING D -2 SAN BERNARDO CREEK DAM - MORRO BAY STAFF ♦ BRIEFING ON PROJECT STATUS AND SCOPE U -a COASTAL STREAMS D1VERSTON PROJECT - MORRO BAY AND SAN LUIS OBISPO STAFFS ♦ PROJECT OVERVIEW /CURRENT STATUS • STATUS WITHIN RESPECTIVE CITY WATER DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS D -4 WRITTEN REPORTS. RECEIVE AND FILE INDIVIDUAL REPORTS 1'ROM CITIES A. NACIMIENTO RESERVOIR ACTI.VITIE;S B. STATE WATER PROJECT STATUS C. WA'T'ER RECLAMATION EFFORTS F. ADJOURNMENT COPIES OF STAFF REPORTS OR OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO EACH ITEM OF 13USINESS REFERRED TO ON THIS AGENDA ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AND RFPRODUCTION AT COST.