HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1996, 1 - ARC 84-96: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF A HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE APARTMENTS, WITH A STREET YARD OF 15' RATHER THAN THE 20' NORMALLY REQUIRED. NMiy Dtle
council a-11-q4P
j acEnba REpout 11mNw.6.,
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
It
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner�4~ ;F,, S L
SUBJECT: ARC 8496: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's approval of the
demolition of a house and construction of three apartments, with a street yard of
15' rather than the 20' normally required.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the
project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant wants to demolish a house and build three apartments, with a street yard of 15'
instead of the 20' normally required. The ARC approved the project on August 5, 1996. A
neighbor who lives across the street has appealed the decision.
Data Summary
Address: 1228 Stafford Street
Applicant: Michael Congdon
Appellant: Isabel Marques, 1239 Stafford St.
Property owner: Lani J. Chillingworth
Representative: Craig Smith
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Section 15303: Construction of not more than
six apartments in an urbanized area.
Project action deadline: Action has already been taken.
Site description
The site is a rectangular lot, 7,500 square feet in area, that contains a single older dwelling. The
site is in a neighborhood of mixed residential uses: single homes and small apartment
developments.
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 2
Project description
The project consists of
• The removal of an existing residence;
• Construction of three one-bedroom apartments with lofts;
• Street yard reduction from 20' to 15%
• Construction of four parking spaces on an alley in the rear and one space on Stafford
Street.
Analysis
1. The existing building is not significant. The ARC approved the demolition of the
existing house, finding it not significant aesthetically, historically, or culturally. There was
no objection at any of the three ARC meetings to the demolition of the building and
redevelopment of the site.
2. The appellant is concerned about lofts, density design, and streetyard exceptions. The
letter of appeal (attached) expresses concern with
• the applicant's request to build three one-bedroom rather than two two-bedroom
apartments. The appellant is concerned that one-bedroom apartments will appeal
more to students than to families and that Stafford street currently contains
primarily duplexes.
• the lofts. The appellant is concerned that lofts will be used as bedrooms.
• the yard exception. The appellant feels that the setback is not consistent with others
in the neighborhood and is an indication that there is too much building on the site.
The following paragraphs address these concerns.
3. Massing, bulk, and lofts were issues with the Commission. The ARC was concerned
about the size of the units and how tall they were, and asked for changes to make them
more in scale with other one-bedroom units and with the neighborhood. The apartments
were reduced in height from about 20' to 18'-1", and reduced in size from 994 square feet
to 843 square feet (including lofts, storage, and laundry areas).
The apartments contain lofts that look out over the living rooms below. The applicant says
they are to be used as study lofts, but the ARC and members of the public expressed
/02..
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 3
concerns that they may be used as bedrooms. If they are used as bedrooms, it is possible
that they may be rented by a greater number of persons than would normally rent one-
bedroom apartments without lofts, which could have an effect on street parking, traffic,
and noise in the neighborhood.
The ARC's purview is not with the floor plans of units, except insofar as these plans affect
the outward appearance of a building. The City's Zoning Regulations allow the use of
lofts, which do not contribute to the total bedroom count (see discussion on density in
section 4, below), provided they meet certain design criteria. In this case, the lofts meet
the criteria for lofts and therefore it would have been inappropriate for the Commission
to require their removal. The Commission determined that the revised size of 843 square
feet was appropriate for a one-bedroom unit, regardless of the design of the floor plan
within that area.
Because of concerns with the potential use of lofts as bedrooms, staff typically requires
developers to sign an agreement acknowledging that the legal use of the unit does not
include use of lofts as bedrooms. The agreement is then recorded, so that future owners
are notified up front of the legal status of the units. The developer in this case has agreed
to sign such an acknowledgment.
4. The applicant wants one-bedroom dwellings. The applicant prefers to build three one-
bedroom apartments. The appellant says it would be more appropriate for this street if the
development were a duplex.
The zoning regulations (section 17.16.010.A.2.d) say that "(a)ny combination of dwelling
types and numbers may be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed
the maximum potential."
The "maximum potential" of this lot is measured in "dwelling units". In the R-2 zone, up
to 12 dwelling units are allowed per acre. A "dwelling unit" is defined as a two-bedroom
dwelling. A one-bedroom dwelling is counted as 0.66 dwelling unit, a studio apartment
is 0.50, and a three-bedroom dwelling is counted as 1.50 dwelling units. Because lofts do
not affect the bedroom count (because they are not bedrooms), their presence does not
have any impact on density.
The site contains 7,500 square feet. An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Therefore, the
maximum potential of the lot is
7,500 SF/43,560 SF = 0.17 acre X 12 units/acre = 2.07 dwelling units.
Therefore, according to the zoning regulations, the applicant can choose any combination
of units that adds up to, but does not exceed, 2.07 dwelling units. He wants to build
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 4
3 X 0.66 units = 1.98 dwelling units.
The appellant prefers that he build
2 X 1.0 = 2.00 dwelling units.
Either combination would be acceptable and consistent with the zoning regulations. The
following section addresses the issue of unit types and neighborhood compatibility.
5. Three one-bedroom or two two-bedroom? The appellant wants to see a duplex on this
lot because that is what has been built on this block in the past. In the immediate block,
there are seven duplexes (including one under construction) and seven single residences.
Some of the existing duplexes have lofts. Bedroom counts for these units are not all
available. In the larger neighborhood surrounding this block, unit types vary widely, from
single residences to as many as six units on an R-2 lot.
Hence, in the immediate block, duplexes are common but there is potential (because of the
number of single residences) for this trend to change. In the larger neighborhood much
greater variety prevails. It could be argued that this block needs more variety.
Neither the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) nor the Zoning Regulations specify that
new residential development should duplicate existing unit types. The LUE calls for new
housing to be "in scale and in character" with the existing neighborhood (Section 2.2.10).
Changes required by the ARC were intended to assure that the new development would
be in scale and character. The ARC liked the "cottage feel" of the three small structures
in this case, and did not support a change to one large structure.
6. The street yard exception is minor. The appellant objected to the streetyard reduction,
allowing a fifteen foot yard rather than a twenty foot yard.
The yard exception is for a small porch for unit A only. If the porch were uncovered, an
exception would not be needed, because uncovered porches may extend into required street
yards up to four feet. Because it is covered, an exception is needed. Staff supported the
yard exception because it allows greater open space between buildings, because the porch
is small, and because this street already has an unusually wide right-of-way - seven feet
wider than normally required. Therefore, a generous amount of landscaping can be
installed on the site and the exception should not look out of place or cause harm to
anyone.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department notes that the driveway ramp will be required to comply with
current ADA requirements, and the sidewalk must be routed behind the driveway ramp. The full
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 5
width of the alley (within the property's frontage) must be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department. Finally, the new driveway must be aligned so that the entire ramp is
contained within the property's street frontage or a written statement obtained from the adjacent
property owner consenting to the encroachment.
The Fire Department notes that hydrants and water pressure are adequate, and that sprinklers will
be required. The trash enclosure will be required to meet fire code standards or be moved to at
least three feet from the property line.
FISCAL BOACT
Construction of this private project will have a negligible effect on the City's treasury.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. A finding justifying the denial
must be made. If the project is denied, the Council should give direction to the applicant on what
kind of development would be acceptable.
The Council may deny the appeal, thereby approving the project, but with modified conditions.
The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant.
Attachments
draft resolutions
vicinity map
ARC report for August 5, 1996
letter of appeal
minutes of July 1, July 15, and August 5, 1996 ARC meetings
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING
THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
APPROVING A THREE-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ALONG WITH
A STREET YARD EXCEPTION, AT 1228 STAFFORD STREET
(ARC 84-96)
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission conducted public hearings on July 1, July
15, and August 5, 1996 and approved project ARC 84-96; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of that action was filed by Isabel Marques on August 13, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 17, 1996 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission
hearing and action, the letter of appeal, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is the construction
of no more than six apartments in an urbanized area;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this City Council, after consideration of the Architectural
Review Commission's action, the appeal, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof finds and determines that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning
Regulations, other applicable City ordinances, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Denial of Appeal. The appeal of ARC 84-96 is hereby denied, thereby
approving the project.
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
ARC 84-96
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 1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED:
i Atto
l��
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL, THEREBY DENYING
APPROVAL OF A THREE-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ALONG WITH
A STREET YARD EXCEPTION, AT 1228 STAFFORD STREET
(ARC 84-96)
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission conducted public hearings on July 1, July
15, and August 5, 1996 and approved project ARC 84-96; and
WHEREAS,an appeal of that action was filed by Isabel Marques on August 13, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 17, 1996 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission
hearing and action, the letter of appeal, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is the construction
of no more than six apartments in an urbanized area;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this City Council, after consideration of the Architectural
Review Commission's action, the appeal, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, finds and determines that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan, the
Zoning Regulations, or other applicable City ordinances because (COUNCILSTATE REASON).
SECTION 2. Approval of AR e�al. The appeal of ARC 84-96 is hereby approved, thereby
denying approval of the project.
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
ARC 84-96
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_ _ 1996;
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED.-
City
PPROVED.City Attorney
s PG RU 126-51
�A Co R
@ 0.o A D
0
mQty "^ GP/R 101
ARC B4 73 O O O
`^ 4 4
UNITS UNIT
4 U
A {
Qa�'4q�A J`�w O O O
�3
Izee
FREDERicKS
/23.
z /209 /2.z9 /Z37 /24/ /ZS/
A
' 6 � 0 3
OO, P sA�L3il 3 UNITq O Z
�i i � Yp?s• t9 ��m 4f�e El
:�'�� rr' °N �3� ❑ 3 AL36'44
a} 0 4Z4A,B
i,i; � � � ��� 410 A-C
ALLEY
rO O JA
�t
3 � O
, 1250 /24
00
SMAFFORD
/223 /2s7 /239 /zs9
S Z 50-5,w
iC RE5497-T3 O O O
i
olIo 4
VICINITY MAP ARC 8496 NORTH
1228 STAFFORD
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REM 8 2
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: August 5, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag rt
FILE NUMBER: ARC 84-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1228 Stafford Street
SUBJECT: Removal of a house and construction of three apartments, with a street yard
exception, on the northerly side of Stafford Street, between California and Kentucky.
RECONEMMNDATION
1. Approve the demolition;
2. Approve a reduced street yard from 20' to 15' for a porch;
and
3. Grant final approval to the project, with direction to return to staff with colors,
landscaping, and trash enclosure design.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant wants to remove an older house and build three one-bedroom apartments with lofts.
Projects containing more than one dwelling unit require architectural review. The Commission
reviewed this project on July 1 and July 15, 1996, and continued it both times with direction to
reduce the overall size of the buildings. The plans have been revised and the applicant is now
asking for final approval.
Data S immaa
Address: 1228 Stafford Street
Applicant: Michael Congdon
Property owner: Lani J. Chillingworth
Representative: Craig Smith
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Section 15303: Construction of not more than
six apartments in an urbanized area.
Project action deadline: September 26, 1996.
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 2
Site description
The site is a rectangular lot, 7,500 square feet in area, that contains a single older dwelling. The
site is in a neighborhood of mixed residential uses: single homes and small apartment
developments.
Emiect description
The project consists of
• The removal of an existing residence;
• Construction of three one-bedroom apartments with lofts;
• Street yard reduction from 20' to 15';
• Construction of four parking spaces on an alley in the rear and one space on Stafford
Street.
EVALUATION
1. The demolition was supported. At the July 1 hearing, the Commission supported the
demolition, but did not specifically act to approve it. The existing building has no
architectural, aesthetic, or historical value. The Commission should make a finding to that
effect and approve its demolition.
2. Lofts and size were the main issues. At the July 15 hearing, the Commission continued
the project with direction to 1) reduce the bulk of the buildings by 100-150 square feet
each; 2)provide additional information on street yards on other properties within the same
block; and 3) continue to work on the design of the street elevation of unit A.
Commissioners and members of the public expressed some concerns with the inclusion of
lofts in this project, because of their potential to be used as bedrooms. At the July 15
hearing, Commission discussion centered on the overall size of the units. The Commission
directed the applicant to return with plans that were from 100 to 150 square feet smaller
than those submitted at that meeting.
The units contained 994 square feet each previously, including storage and loft. The
revised designs have 843 square feet. Therefore, they have been reduced in area by 151
square feet.
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 3
The overall bulk of the buildings has been reduced as well. The"mechanical" space present
in previous plans has been eliminated. Because of the redesign structurally, the study loft
no longer has openings on two sides. It overlooks the living room only. The applicant has
reduced the size of the buildings in accordance with commission direction. The sizes now
appear appropriate for one-bedroom dwellings.
3. The street yard exception is now for a porch only. The applicant is still asking for a
street yard exception, but for a small porch on unit A only. The porch appears to extend
into the required yard area four feet, but no dimensions are given. Uncovered porches may
extend into street yards up to four feet, but covered porches, like this one, require an
exception.
At the July 15 hearing, the Commission asked for more information about existing street
yards in this block. A City Planning intern measured yards in the block, and noted the
approximate distance of each home from the curb (since parts of the street do not have
sidewalks). A copy of the marked map is attached to this report. Because of the unusually-
wide right-of--way (70' where 56' is now standard), a house with a 20' setback will be 32'
from the curb.
Four of the existing homes have yards smaller than 20' (1210, 1256, and 1274 Stafford
and 501 Kentucky). Three of these four are comer lots, where the yard requirement is only
ten feet, but two of those (210 Stafford and 501 Kentucky) have yards less than ten feet.
Therefore, there are other reduced yards on this street, but not many.
Staff continues to support the yard exception in this case, because of the large right-of--way
and additionally now because it only applies to a small porch entry for one unit. The
separation between buildings provides greater privacy for residents and the small intrusion
into the yard area should not be objectionable to the neighborhood.
4. The porch. The Commission wanted to see changes to unit A so that this unit would
present a friendly, "front-door" appearance to Stafford Street. Revised plans show a
different south elevation for unit A than for the other two units. This elevation includes
a front door and craftsman-like porch roof, similar to the entries on the east side of the
buildings (unit A has two entries). The redesign appears to meet the intent of the
Commission's direction.
5. Design overall is changed. Because the original designer is out of town for an extended
period, the applicant has retained a different architect to follow through on architectural
plans. The basic plan and size of the buildings remains (other than changes noted above).
The exterior appearance has changed primarily in roof design and pitch and in details. The
pitch is lower, making the overall height 18'-1" above finish floor (previous plans showed
/-/3
ARC 84-96
1228 Stafford Street
Page 4
the height measurements incorrectly; the height was about 1.5' taller than this version).
The upper loft area pops out and occupies a smaller portion of the overall roof, which
thereby reduces the bulk of the building. Entry porches are more substantial.
6. Trash enclosure is not yet designed. A trash enclosure is shown at the rear of the
property, near the alley. The enclosure has room for trash and recyclables, and appears
generous in size. The Fire Department has noted that because it is close to the property
line it must be designed for fire protection, either by use of a tall wall (up to eight feet
high on the property line)or by use of sprinklers in the enclosure itself. Alternatively, the
enclosure could be moved away from the property line, although a satisfactory location has
not been found. A final design has not yet been created, but the architect will be prepared
to display some options in sketch form at the meeting. The final design can return to staff.
7. Colors and materials will be available at the meeting. The representative will display
colors and colored elevations at the meeting. Staff has no information about the colors yet,
but notes that a two-tone color scheme is proposed for the primary building walls, that the
finish will be plaster and the roofing asphalt shingles.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments have been noted in previous reports.
RECOMMENDATION
■ Approve the demolition, based on finding the building not significant historically,
architecturally, or aesthetically;
■ Approve a reduced street yard, from 20' to 15', based on finding the exception will not
harm persons living or working in the vicinity because a generous yard area is being
maintained between the sidewalk and the first dwelling and because the exception applies
only to a small entry porch;
■ Grant final approval, with direction to return to staff with trash enclosure design, colors
and materials, and landscaping.
Attached:
vicinity map
map showing street yard measurements in this block
1-
.a
-w
_ e
� OSi M
l ml tiCD Flo'
_ _I IN � I
)J)
I � I
C oir Orr r
3nN3Ad ANDMN3>
/r
N v R rhh CB>PZ ise
I I IF i I 0Z I I I
N I I
Q �
0 (v
M h N ' l c N ^ I A/ / ' I'ro N �I NI N N� N
N _ I Q m — I —
M MI MI I N NI N N �jiiw
�tovl
l (`� �Z SZ I S I SZ
u1 SN1 �i ti r
N a e ciED n N ;•�'• --ED
LID tr)
ELJ Cm
f► _— — \\
N c �. tJ \\l
It--N--- M n O -
N
Go -
'r m � �
m
cy
gri
h
Its-
to 9t 41
N W �--� --^ _ 1,n -- - - e � --
�DI I ml W OI _iN _i N Mi vi u)l O%1 O ? h
0
a I I l lUl
ep
O or
z l I sz I I I sz o� sz I I I l sz oz os I
O��J�P
9C 0!C d!r >!C 06r OCh9!► Odh ►Z> ►R �`\L
3nN3AV AVAiH.LVH G V` 9 .
s 5
1\ b0
O
SII► I�Iplll�lllllllll�������►U111(111111 �� os�►1'1 tuts OBISyo
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 .
le� EV ZOZPre dered on AoPe Sy-q6 Jia S, 19�1�
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
ame/D partment (Date)
Appellant: a�
Name/Title Mailing Address Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only: p
Calendared for Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): ® �G
Arnold jonas R �s
AUG 13 1996
Judy Lautner :"/S .�9•
CITY CLERK
J,2 '7 CP.
Original in City Clerk's Office
0
r 17
p � i
17 , .
CCS
f�a�f6a1 7Aale -W JW 7��IoWlomt
�T tTeiy��sP�
1-17
ARC Minutes
July 1, 1996
Page 2
2. ARC 84-96: 1228 Stafford Street: Review of three one-bedroom apartments (with lofts)
and an exception to allow a 15-foot street yard; R-2 zone; Michael E. Congdon, applicant.
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
demolition and the street yard reduction, and schematic approval of the project, with direction to
lower the overall height of the buildings by two to three feet.
The public hearing was opened.
Andy Kavalaars, representative, stated that he did not feel that reducing the building height was
necessary,that the proposed height is between that of the higher building on one side and the lower
one on the other side. The colors will be light beige and green so the buildings won't appear large.
He felt the mechanical room area could be reduced. He can add full stairs which will reduce the loft
area by about 16 square feet and the loft will still be open on two sides. He said the living room is
small and the high ceiling makes it seem larger. The stairs would be on the east side of the patio
door.
Isabel Marques, 1239 Stafford, stated that she was not notified of this project until she heard about
this meeting. She thought the project would be a duplex. She felt that the lofts will be used as
bedrooms and she doesn't think this should be allowed in an R-2 zone. She submitted a letter from
Mrs. Hanna of 1269 Stafford Street and also photos of the Hannas' house, which is next to some
other apartments that are under construction. She had talked to Mr. Congdon and thought he was
rude. She is concerned about traffic and noise and felt that the parking requirement was not
adequate. There would always be a lot of cars. She thought it would be better if it were a duplex
with two-bedroom units.
ARC Minutes
July 1, 1996
Page 3
Shelly S., 1227 Stafford, stated she thought there would be a parking problem because five spaces
are not adequate for three apartments. She said it is hard to park on Stafford already. She felt that
three one-bedroom apartments with lofts is just too much. She believed the lofts will eventually
become bedrooms.
Michael Congdon, applicant, indicated that he had wanted three buildings for a nicer feel than one
large building. He felt that parking in the rear would help and it would increase the landscaped area.
Isabel Marques suggested changing density unit values, counting lofts as 1/2 unit.
The public hearing was closed.
Commr. Mandeville supported the demolition and the yard reduction. She wanted to discuss the
height of the buildings and the use of the lofts. She felt it is difficult for the Commission to address
these issues.
Commr. Illingworth said his views are similar to Commr. Mandeville's. The side of the front
buildings faces Stafford and he thought that seemed odd. Perhaps the building could be turned so
that the front faces the street or else the elevation could be changed. He was concerned about the
lofts and the parking. He felt the proportions looked okay.
Commr. Regier stated that he was reluctant to grant even schematic approval. He felt there is a need
to understand where the stairway would be. He would also like to see the front of the first building
facing toward the street.
Commr. Aiken said that he agreed with some of the previous comments. He said the lengthwise
elevation appears like a streetscape. He stated that he is not sure that rotating the front building will
make a difference in the livability of the unit. He did have concerns about the stairs addition. He
supported continuance and wanted to look at lowering the height of the buildings.
Commr. Combrink said he supports the other commissioners' and the staff's position. He felt the
apartments were large for one-bedroom units. He thought that they could fit in much better if they
were smaller. He wasn't sure about how the stairs would look.
Commr. Illingworth stated he had no serious problem with the demolition or with the three units. He
was, however, worried that the stairway may disrupt the whole thing. He expressed concern with
the bulk of the buildings. He would like to see dimensions on the elevations and sections because the
elevations look shorter than the sections on paper. He noted that there are neighbor concerns. He
would like to see an indication of where the ceiling height of the loft is lower than five feet. He
wanted to see the project oriented to the street.
ARC Minutes
July 1., 1996 .
Page 4
Commr. Aiken moved to continue-the item to July 15, 1996, with direction to return with :.
A revised floor plan showing the proposed stairway;
■ A revise&loft plan showing where the area above five feet:in height (usable loft area) is;
0 A reduction•to the overall height.as much as feasible.;
a. A revised street elevation:for unit A that presents a``•front" appearance to Stafford Street-,
® Additional dimensions.so that heights and sizes can easily be determined.
Cornmr. Mandeville seconded the motion.
AYES: Aiken, Mandeville,Regi'er, Illingworth
.NOES:. Combrink
ABSENT: bay,Joines=Novotny•.
The motion passed.
ARC Minutes
July 15, 1996
Page 6
6. ARC 84-96; 1228 Stafford Street: Review of three one bedroom apartments(with lofts) on
R-2 zoned site and an exception to allow a 15 foot street yard; R-2 zone; Michael E.
Congdon, applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the demolition
and the reduced street yard and schematic approval to the project with direction.
The public hearing was opened.
Michael Congdon, applicant, stated that he had reduced the building height 1'8" and added planters
below the windows hoping that the project revisions would address the ARC concerns. He felt that
the proposed tree planting, along with the height reduction, should address the massing and bulk
issues.
Isabel Marcus, 1239 Stafford, stated concern about the lofts being used as bedrooms. She felt that
the reduced street yard is inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Michael Congdon felt that having separate buildings was a nicer design, than having all the units in
a single building.
Doris Johnson said she would like to retain as much of the street yard as possible.
Commr. Combrink noted that the units are still large for one-bedroom apartments. He would like to
see the height of the buildings reduced even more.
Michael Congdon said that he could push the buildings closer together if that was the direction of the
Commission, but he felt that would detract from the design. He also felt a steeper roof is a more
traditional design.
Commr. Combrink felt that the units could be reduced 100-120 square feet and that would be a better
scale.
The public hearing was closed.
�-oL�
ARC Minutes
July 15, 1996
Page 7
Commr. Mandeville said she liked the height reduction, it appeared more cottage-like. She also liked
the option presented at the meeting with the door. She felt it would be a benefit to have three
smaller, separate buildings, which is the reason for the reduced street yard.
Commr. Regier stated that he understood that the stairway design would work. He liked the height
reduction and preferred option one in terms of the entry design. He noted that the sketches of the
entry design were rough and he suggested returning with a better rendering. He suggested that the
applicant explore combining two units in order to maintain a 20' setback and noted that he could
support final approval.
Commr. Illingworth said he was uncomfortable with the street yard reduction if all other buildings
on the street conform. He felt that the applicant should look at the possibility of a bay window
addition. He wanted to see better detailing of the street elevation.
Commr. Illingworth moved to continue the project to a date uncertain with the following direction:
■ reduce the bulk of the buildings by 100-150 square feet each;
■ provide additional information on street yards on other properties within the same block; and
■ continue to work on the design of the street elevation of Unit A.
Commr. Regier seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Regier, Combrink, Mandeville
NOES: None
ABSENT: Aiken, Day, Joines-Novotny
The motion passed.
ARC Minutes
August 5, 1996
Page 2
2. ARC 84-96: 1228 Stafford Street: Final review of three one-bedroom apartments (with
lofts) and an exception to allow a 15 foot street yard;R-2 zone; Michael Congdon, applicant.
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
demolition, the reduced street yard from 20'to 15'for a porch, and final approval of the project, with
ARC Minutes
August 5, 1996
Page 3
direction to return to staff with colors, landscaping, and trash enclosure design.
The public hearing was opened.
Craig Smith, Architect, introduced Michael Congdon, applicant. Mr. Smith explained that they had
tried to solve the problems that were raised at previous meetings. He said that the structures were
reoriented to create a greater street yard with the only intrusion being the small porch for unit A. He
noted that most of that building is 32' from the curb.
Craig Smith indicated that there had been a change in the bulk and mass of the building which made
the building less top-heavy and the loft had been opened more to the lower area. He stated that there
is no intent to use the lofts as bedrooms and that the owner is willing to sign a covenant to that effect.
He felt that it is an efficient unit. Smith stated that the colors had been chosen to reduce the apparent
bulk and mass of the building and that landscaping would be added to the site. They concurred with
the staff recommendations.
Commr. Joines-Novotny asked staff questions about the lofts. Whisenand explained that if a loft
meets the zoning definition, it cannot be counted as a bedroom.
Commr. Combrink stated that he thought the loft looked awkward perched on the roof.
Craig Smith explained that the"layered look"was intended to break up the building. He said he was
not sure of any way to improve its appearance without increasing the height of the building.
Isabel Marques, 1229 Stafford, said that she thought one building would be cheaper to build. She
questioned the barn effect and asked about the street yard. She felt that there was no way to monitor
the number of students living in the units and that there were be an impact on traffic and noise. She
stated that families would not rent these units, although she has nothing against students.
Irene Hannah, 1269 Stafford, said there is a building next to her with one and two-bedroom units with
lofts. She indicated that there is a fence along her driveway.
Isabel Marques responded that painting the top of the building darker would lessen the height. She
felt that the lofts were still the main problem and she would like to go to the City Council to get them
to pass an ordinance requiring that lofts be counted in density calculations.
Doris Johnson,Kentucky and Stafford, said that she would like to see a less institutional color choice
than gray.
Gail Congdon stated that she preferred the smaller country ambiance possible with three small
buildings rather than the big box look.
ARC Minutes
August 5, 1996
Page 4
The public hearing was closed.
Commr. Joines-Novotny said the buildings seem to be cute bungalows, but was concerned about the
principle of the lofts.
Ron Whisenand said the lofts meet the City's definition. The project should not be held hostage
because of loft concerns. The Commission should focus on issues of height, bulk and massing.
Commr. Day said it was a sociological issue. Although it is legal to create the lofts, she was
sympathetic to the neighbors. She felt that the ARC is not the place for discussion of the land use
impacts of lofts.
Commr. Aiken stated that he appreciated the response to the previous comments and felt they were
good modifications. He liked the new entry to unit A. He too was sympathetic to the neighbors'
concerns. He did support the project but thought the colors were a little dark and should be
lightened.
Commr. Regier said that he has no problem with the massing but didn't like the appearance of the
colored elevation. He felt it was not interesting and that it lacked organization and detailing. He
also agreed that the colors were too dark.
Commr. Mandeville stated that she supported the project as it was redesigned. She said she
appreciated the neighbors coming out to the meetings. She wanted to see other colors used on the
buildings.
Commr. Combrink said he thought that the lofts were sticking up out of the building and were
aesthetically displeasing. He appreciated the reduction in size but could not support the tacked-on
look. He didn't like the colors and felt that use of different materials, perhaps masonite siding, would
be better for the"craftsman" style proposed. He thought the porch location was fine.
Commr. Aiken moved to approve the demolition and the street yard exception for the porch only, and
to grant final approval to the revised project, with 1) the trash enclosure design; 2) landscaping; 3)
horizontal wood-like masonite siding above the plaster wainscot on all units, and 4) revised colors
to return to staff.
Commr. Day seconded the motion.
Craig Smith responded that they could use plaster at the lower level and hardboard above and use a .
warmer gray color.
Commr. Aiken moved to approve the demolition and the street yard exception for the porch only, and
ARC Minutes
August 5, 1996
Page 5
to grant final approval to the revised project, with 1) the trash enclosure design; 2) landscaping; 3)
additional fenestration and vertical landscaping on the street elevation of unit A; 4) horizontal wood-
like masonite siding above the plaster wainscot (or use masonite) on all units, and 5) revised colors
to return to staff.
AYES: Aiken, Day, Mandeville
NOES: Combrink, Joines-Novotny, Regier
ABSENT: Illingworth
The motion failed.
Craig Smith noted that fenestration or vertical landscaping could be added.
Commr. Aiken moved to approve the project as indicated previously with the addition of fenestration
and vertical landscaping materials to the left of unit A.
Commr. Day seconded the motion.
AYES: Aiken, Day, Combrink, Joines-Novotny, Regier, Mandeville
NOES: None
ABSENT: Illingworth
The motion passed.
3. ARC 32-96; 2238 Broad Street: C nceptual review of plans for a new grocery store and
shops, C-N zone; Albertson's, appli ant.
Commr. Mandeville refrained from participatio ecause of a potential conflict of interest.
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the sta report, recommending that comments and
direction be provided to the applicant and staff rega#ding each of the design features listed, and
continuing action to a date uncertain.
The public hearing was opened.
Whitney McIlvaine explained the changes that ill be required as a result of the traffic study.
Tom Courtney, Architect, introduced Marsh 11 Ochylski and indicated that they had met with staff
on several occasions. They showed photographs of the buildings that were to be demolished and
noted that the archeological survey showed nothing significant. He said that all the buildings were
. September 13, 1996
MEETiN� AGENDA
DATE '�7'�6 ITEM #.=.
Mayor Allen K. SettleCOUNCIL ZMDD DIR
City of San Luis Obispo OOCAO ❑ FIN DIR
990 Palm Street ! C?ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93101-3249 I 1201(TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
A'CLERIVORIC O POLICE CHF
Rei Appeal - 1228 Stafford StreeR, ECE,VED ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
1. September 17, 1996 ❑ cFILE ❑ UTIL DIR i
$fp 1 IYY0 X% AD ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle:
cmr coulacaL
SAII I,n0 ORISP0.CA
I feel I should explain some of these reasons for opposing the building of the
three apartments at 1228 Stafford Street, in that the Board has recommended my
appeal be denied. ..and that I will have only three minutes in which to speak to
you and the Council members.
Our family has lived on this street for over 40 years. In the last 10 ,years it has
become a bad parking problem, loud noise (student parties) and also very heavy
traffic when Cal Poly is on.
Clearly, by wanting a 15-foot street yard proves the contractor is trying to put
too many buildings on this zoning. Also, these apartments are going to have lofts.
A loft is just another word for a "bedroom". This street is a R-2 zone (2 homes
or a duplex). There are five duplexes on that side of the street. We welcome
another duplex. The duplex on the adjacent lot has lofts but those lofts are bed-
rooms and have unit values for them.
The ARC had some noes on this. . .the noes had the same questions we have (. .why
not stay with a duplex and. . .the building looks like a "barn"). Actually, the
building option the contractor had at the second ARC meeting looked better than
the "barn". Families with children certainly would welcome a duplex as there is
also another school in the vicinity. . .Pacheco Elementary School at Grand Avenue
and Slack Street. The contractor should consider building for families not just
for Poly students.
If you and some of the Council members come out to the 1228 site, please also see
1275 Stafford Street. We opposed this at the ARC meeting in December of 1991 say-
ing it was too much for that lot. .somehow it was passed and now those buildings
are so crowded together it looks like a R-3 or R-4 zone. The lofts in these build-
ings obstruct the view of the people that live on Kentucky Street. We don't want
this at 12.28 Stafford.
When I have used the term "we" I am referring to the neighbors on this street that
oppose these three apartments for the same reasons stated:
Mrs: Shelly Staneic and family, 1227 Stafford
Mrs. Faye Hanna, 1269 Stafford
Miss Dorris Johnson, 510 Kentucky
We highly recommend the City Council consider adding a density unit value of
possibly .25 for lofts in your future meetings.
In your discussion with the Council members, please ask yourselves...if you lived
in this R-2 zone what would you prefer across the street from you... a duplex or
three apartments with lofts. I'M sending copies of this letter to the Council members.
Sincerely yours,...,
1Z
Isabel Marques
ln7n c+nr4 nnri Rf.rPP_t