The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/18/1992, 3 - STREAMLINED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR AESTHETICALLY INSIGNIFICANT PROJECTS. l`lunly'III�IIIIInIIIIn��IIII III vJ MEETING DATE: IpIN9 II II�XII��) c� o san ��s og�spo 0-� g-42 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ! D Gprn PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Streamlined architectural review procedure for aesthetically insignificant projects. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Introduce an ordinance to print, in summary form, (A) determining that the recommended changes are categorically exempt from environmental review and (B) adding a category of "aesthetically insignificant projects" to the Municipal Code chapter which prescribes architectural review, so such projects can be approved without separate applications. (2) Adopt a resolution making corresponding changes to the architectural review guidelines. DISCUSSION Municipal Code Chapter 2 . 48 establishes the requirements for architectural review. Commission review and approval are required for "all structures and physical improvements and for any relocation, addition, or extension to or exterior change to existing buildings, structures and physical improvements. . . unless the commission or the director shall certify that the nature of the work is minor and incidental and need not be reviewed by the commission. " The requirement applies to all buildings except single-family dwellings. The architectural review guidelines, endorsed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and adopted by resolution of the City Council, provide a procedure for "minor or incidental" review, including an application and fee (now $180) , and a decision time frame of "about 10 days. " The Community Development Department ' s "Policies and Procedures, " written after consultation with the ARC and Council, describe the sequence of actions needed to respond to a request for minor or incidental project review. A public notice is posted at the site. (The staff decision whether a project is minor or incidental can be appealed to the ARC. ) A staff planner makes a recommendation to the director or mid-management planner, who acts on the request without a public hearing. Staff has long wanted to change the rules which require those making truly minor changes or additions to buildings to submit architectural review applications and to wait for decisions. The minor or incidental process is less expensive and less time consuming than commission review, but it is excessive for some types of projects. 3- I ��n�i�u►IVIINIIIIIII►��u►►��`�III city of san L.Ais osispo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Following the existing rules, staff routinely processes minor or incidental requests. Of the 60 to 100 minor or incidental applications received in a typical year, perhaps one-half do warrant discretionary review. The others are insignificant. They include projects such as: - Installing a new store front in a multiple-tenant commercial building, where the new glazing and trim match existing store fronts; I - Installing a trash enclosure in the parking lot for a commercial building, where all zoning standards are met and the enclosure's form, materials, and colors match adjacent buildings; - Making a small laundry-room addition to the rear of an apartment, where form, materials, and colors match the existing building. Some of these insignificant projects do not need building permits, or the required permits can be obtained in one visit, if the applicant provides complete information. Others require a few days for plan checking. Staff recommends changing the code, the guidelines, and the procedures manual so insignificant projects can be dealt with as quickly as possible. The aesthetically insignificant projects would be categorically exempt from environmental review under the following classes: (1) existing facilities; (2) replacement or reconstruction; (3) small structures; (4) minor alterations to land. Staff believes the change to a more streamlined process is itself exempt as a minor change to land use limitations (class 5) . C Staff will continue to carefully consider proposed additions or changes to historically or architecturally significant structures, to assure an appropriate level of review. Also, staff will try to be aware of individual or cumulative changes to projects previously approved by the ARC, so that especially sensitive features (such as the colors of a prominent hillside house) remain consistent with the original approval. The procedures manual will highlight these concerns. The basic features of the "minor or incidental" procedure and the "aesthetically insignificant" procedure are summarized on the following page. The proposed aesthetically insignificant procedure would not take the place of the existing minor or incidental procedure for all projects that are now considered minor or incidental, but it would provide a more streamlined review for qualifying projects. 3-� II'N�i�iii�IIIIIIIIIPi IIlIIl1 city of San .. AS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Minor/incidental Aesthetically insignificant Plans: separate application no separate application Fee: $180 none Time: 10 - 14 days 0 - 3 days Action by: staff staff Public notice: sign at site none Public meeting: only on appeal none ALTERNATIVES The Council may adopt other rules for architectural review. Approval of any significant differences from the recommended ordinance should follow proper public notice and a separate hearing. The Council may keep the current procedures, or continue action. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION On July 20, 1992 , the ARC by consensus supported the recommended changes. There was no public testimony, and no written public comment has been received. I RECOMMENDATION: i 1. Introduce an ordinance to print, in summary form, (A) determining that the recommended changes are categorically exempt from environmental review and (B) adding a category of "aesthetically insignificant projects" to the Municipal Code chapter which prescribes architectural review, so such projects can be approved without separate applications. (2) Adopt a resolution making corresponding changes to the architectural review guidelines. I ATTACHMENTS Draft ordinance, legislative draft, and synopsis Draft resolution Excerpt - adopted ARC guidelines gmD: ARCFSTCC.WP 3-3 . ORDINANCE NO. (1992 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STREAMLINING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR AESTHETICALLY INSIGNIFICANT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to consider appropriate project review requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed provisions are consistent with the objectives of architectural review and with the general plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety and general welfare; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Council determines that there will be no significant environmental impacts from revising the architectural review procedures, and hereby approves a categorical exemption as a minor alteration to land use limitations. SECTION 2 . Municipal Code Part 2 . 48 . 150.0 is amended to read as follows: C. The commission shall review and approve plans for all structures and physical improvements, and for any relocation, addition, extension, or exterior change to existing buildings, structures and physical improvements, as set forth in Section 2 . 48 . 170. Such approval by the commission must be obtained before a building permit or other city permit may be- issued authorizing construction, alteration, relocation, addition, or extension. This requirement for commission approval shall not apply to work which the director determines to be aesthetically insignificant, or minor or incidental. When, in the opinion of the director, an application for use permit, variance or rezoning may create an architectural impact contrary to the objectives of this chapter, the director may require architectural review prior to any required hearing on the application. — 1 Ordinance No. (1992 Series) Page 2 SECTION 3 . A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the votes for and against, shall be published once, at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1992 , on motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City dministrative Officer i t orney Community D lopment Director gmD. ARC-ORD.wP 3 Legislative Draft C. The commission shall review and approve plans for all structures and physical improvements:i. and for any relocation, addition, . extension to or exterior change e€—er to existing buildings, structures and physical improvements leeated in s,,; as set forth in Section 2 .48 . 170. Such .approua. ley the commission must be obtaa:ned before a building permit or other city permit maybe .issued: authorizing construction, alteration, relocation, addition, or extension tinder the er—the--direetesigall eertt€ythat the nature Is miner er ineldental and need net be reviewed by _-......________ This ..r.....e... for comma sbn approval shall not apply.;! to work >wha.ch the director -deter Ines to be aesthetically rnsignifa ca>�t, or;i minor or ' Yncidental When, __ ... . .. in the opinion of the director, an application for use permit, variance or rezoning may create an architectural impact contrary to the objectives of this chapter, he ,the da.rector may require _ -_.. __ _ __.. architectural review prior to the Planning any....: requited hearing on the ......:-.. ......... ....._... applXg0. ori. gmG:FAST-LEG.WP - 3-� [synopsis] ORDINANCE NO. (1992 SERIES) streamlining Architectural Review On , 1992 , the San Luis Obispo City Council voted to to introduce Ordinance No. (1992 Series) , which amends the City' s architectural review requirements. The amendment would establish a new "aesthetically insignificant" category of projects. With concurrent changes to architectural guidelines, aesthetically insignificant projects, such as minor additions or remodels, could be acted on by city staff, without public notice and hearings. Other types of projects would still be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission or by staff, following public notice. The Council must vote again to approve the ordinance before it can take effect. That action is tentatively scheduled for 1992 , at a regular City Council meeting to begin at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk' s Office (Room #I) at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. For more information, contact the Community Development Department at 781- 7171. Pam Voges, City Clerk gm G:FAST-SYN.WP 3- 7 RESOLUTION NO. (1992 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES CONCERNING AESTHETICALLY INSIGNIFICANT PROJECTS The Council resolves as follows: The City' s architectural review guidelines (published as "Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo") , section titled "which projects need ARC approval, " are hereby amended to read as shown below. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the documents published by the City. "Architectural review is required for all building projects in the city, except for the following: 1. Aesthetically insignificant projects. The Community Development Director may determine that a new small structure, a change or addition to an existing building, or other site feature, has no potential for conflict with the objectives of architectural review due to its size, location, form, materials, and colors. In such cases, no separate application or fee are required. The determination will be noted in the project' s building-permit file, if any, or in the site's address file. 2. Minor or incidental projects. The Community Development Director may determine that work such as a sign, a building addition or remodel, or a new small structure is minor, or incidental to a larger, previously approved project. Plans for projects which an applicant believes are minor or incidental are submitted for staff review, along with an application and fee.. The Community Development Director decides within about ten days . if the project must be reviewed by the ARC. If not, the Director may approve the project, subject to appropriate changes or conditions. The Director ' s action may be appealed to the ARC. 3. Individually built houses. Plans for a single- family house need architectural approval only when: (a) required as a subdivision condition for the lot, (b) an applicant proposes to build three or more houses in the same area, or (c) the Community Development Director determines the location is a sensitive site. " 3-8 Resolution No. (1992 Series) Page 2 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 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: 4Ainistrative Officer Community Dev o ment Director gmH: FAST-RES.WP 3- q ADOPTED ARC GUIDELINES (pages 14 and 15) ■ WHICH PROJECTS NEED ARC APPROVAL? Architectural review is recurred for all building projects in the city.except for these two types. 1. Minor proposals and minor construction, including signs, which are incidental to a larger project (Eimer :ne city s Community Deveiooment Direc:cr or the ARC may ceciare a orolec, or s,gn minoror in- cidemal. ') Pians for crojecrs which ,he ap- plicant feels maybe minor" or nc dental should be submitted 'or staff 'eivew An application and fee are required. The Com. fliu;L;y Devdicpffeni Dlrc�icr dcc,de within about 10 cays ;1 :he project must be reviewed by the ARC. If a project doesn't re- quire ARC review the Director may approve conditions deemed appropriate. 2. Individually built houses(in most cases). Plans for individually-built houses DO require ARC approval when (a) architectural review has been required as a condition of approval for the subdivision in which the houses to be built. (b) a developer proposes to build three or more houses. or(c) the Community Development Director determines the loca- tion is a "sensitive" site. 3 -l0