HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2014 PH1 Appeal ARC Decision 1335 Johnson Ave - Staff Report
September 2, 2014
PH 1
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
INCLUDING A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION
(APPLICATION ARC MI 175-13)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 6), denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s action to approve the project at 1335 Johnson Avenue, based on findings,
including support for a creek setback exception, and subject to conditions.
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant, Dan Ferriera, proposes to construct a two-story addition to an existing studio
residence on a half-acre site at the northwest corner of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street.
Architectural review of the project was required because the project was located along San Luis
Obispo Creek (SLOMC §2.48.050(B)), which traverses the southerly portion of the site. The
existing residence is located partially within a 20-foot creek setback within which structures may
not be constructed, except as provided by exception (Zoning Ordinance §17.16.025).
Site Data
Applicant and
Representative Dan Ferreira
Zoning Office (O)
Special Considerations (S)
General Plan Office
Site Area 21,025 sq. ft. (0.48 ac)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt as New
Construction of a Small Structure
(Guidelines §15303)
PH1 - 1
Appeal of ARC approval of an addition to a single-family residence and creek setback exception
(ARC MI 175-13: 1335 Johnson Avenue) Page 2
The original design of the project, as submitted with the application, was substantially different
in appearance and style from the current project design. While the project was considered to be
minor, it was not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. Staff suggested to the
applicant that changes in the design could be made to reduce the extent of the creek setback
exception. The application was referred to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for
advice and assistance in the application of Community Design Guidelines to the project.
On May 19, 2014, the ARC reviewed the original project design at a public hearing. The ARC
provided direction to the applicant on design changes that would make the project more
consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, and indicated support for additional minor
encroachment into the creek setback for a high-quality design that responded properly to the site
constraints. Consideration of the application was continued to a future date.
The applicant revised the project design and submitted plans for an addition that was more
compatible with the existing residence on the site and with the surrounding area. On June 16,
2014, the ARC reviewed the revised project design at a public hearing and found that the project
was consistent with Community Design Guidelines, respected the constraints imposed by the
presence of the creek and riparian vegetation on the site, and would minimize impacts to the
adjacent creek habitat. Pursuant to SLOMC § 17.16.025.G.4, the ARC found that a discretionary
exception to the creek setback standard was appropriate in order to allow reasonable use of the
site, as there was no alternate location on the site within which an addition could be built, and
new construction was limited to a minimal portion of an already paved and developed area. The
revised project was approved by the ARC, subject to conditions limiting construction to the area
that was already developed and paved, and explicitly requiring protection of trees and riparian
vegetation.
Appeal
On June 26, 2014, an appeal of the ARC’s decision approving the project was filed by Victoria
Olson on behalf of the appellant, Robert F. Mueller (Attachment 3). Decisions of the
Architectural Review Commission are appealed to the City Council. This discussion addresses,
Figure 1: Revised Project Design, as approved by the ARC
PH1 - 2
Appeal of ARC approval of an addition to a single-family residence and creek setback exception
(ARC MI 175-13: 1335 Johnson Avenue) Page 3
and responds to, the reasons for the appeal, as given by the appellant. The following reason for
the appeal is listed by the appellant on the appeal form:
“See emails attached. Robert Mueller currently unavailable to provide further
explanation but will answer all questions.”
Copies of three email messages were attached to the appeal form (Attachment 3) to further
explain the reason for his appeal of the Commission’s decision.
Appeal - First Email Message (April 7th): The first message, dated April 7, reads as follows:
Thank you for providing the file copy.
The plans are very limited and hard to read. The plans and information you provided do
not appear to answer many of the questions that one might have about the project. I do
not see a lot of details that are not in the package that would be required for an
application of this type in the City of San Luis Obispo or for that matter any California
town.
A couple of other questions would be if there are any original permit (sic) for the existing
commercial (sic) use. What is the permit history on file for the site..
What work is being done in the creek area? Is there more site plan detail? What type of
foundation etc.?
Please let me know what the status of the application is, including any appeal period.
Based on not knowing the above information and being able understand questions about
the project, I am sending over an appeal of any decision in favor of the project.
Staff Response: This message does not identify a particular concern with the decision made by
the Commission or with the project itself. The appellant was provided with an appropriate
response to the inquiries made in his message.
Legibility of Plans: Prior to this message, a copy of the project plans at reduced size (11” by 17”,
and depicting the original project design) was provided to the appellant at his request. In
addition, full-size plans are available to any interested party for review. The appellant did not
visit the department to review any of the available application materials until more than a week
after filing his appeal, approximately three months after his initial contact with the department.
Project Details and Questions: The application was deemed to be complete, with sufficient
information to assess the project’s consistency with Community Design Guidelines and
development standards, and to determine the appropriateness of granting a creek setback
exception. In an email dated April 8th, the project planner responded to the appellant’s request for
project information, permit history, and application status. The appellant was informed that no
work would be done in the creek area, and that all work would be done in the existing footprint
of the house, within an area that had been paved for quite some time. One sycamore tree was
PH1 - 3
Appeal of ARC approval of an addition to a single-family residence and creek setback exception
(ARC MI 175-13: 1335 Johnson Avenue) Page 4
near the house and any trimming of the tree would require the supervision of a qualified arborist.
No additional site plan detail was available beyond what was included on the site plan submitted
with the application. Details about the type of foundation would be included with plans
submitted for construction permits, for review by the Building Division. The appellant was
further informed that the status of the application was “under review”, with action expected soon,
and that any action could be appealed within a 10-day appeal period.
Intent to Appeal: A letter, dated April 7th, was subsequently received from Mr. Mueller appealing
any decision in favor of the project. On April 28th the department informed Mr. Mueller that no
action had been taken on the application, that his appeal was premature, and that the application
was being referred to the ARC for their consideration at a public hearing on May 19th.
Appeal - Subsequent Email Messages (June 20th and 26th): On June 19th, Mr. Mueller was
notified that the ARC approved the application, and attached a copy of the staff report for his
convenience. On June 20th, the appellant responded as follows:
Thanks. I would like to read through this. Since the time is short I will likely send in the
appeal prior to speaking with you to understand your process in recommending the
setback and grandfathering non-conforming use.
A subsequent message, dated June 26th, was delivered with Mr. Mueller’s appeal form:
I was unable to determine the status of the application. In order to insure that the appeal
(if needed) is timely I asked my assistant to deliver the originals of these documents to the
Planning department.
Staff Response: These messages do not identify or adequately explain any particular concern
about the decision made by the Commission or with the project itself. The appellant was
provided with appropriate responses as discussed below.
Review of Staff Report: Over the course of two and a half months since the appellant’s first
contact with the department, he has had ample opportunity to review staff reports and the
application file to discover any available information or details he wished to learn about the
project and understand the recommendations made to the ARC. Staff reports for Architectural
Review Commission hearings are made publicly available before hearings are held, and were
provided to him each time he requested one. The Commission’s hearings are open to the public,
and the public is given an opportunity to address the Commission with comments and concerns
about projects under consideration, however, the appellant did not attend either of the public
hearings at which the ARC considered this application.
Application Status: The appellant had been following the status of the application for more than
two months, and was aware of each pending action on the application. He was notified of the
project approval and aware of the status of the application.
Appeal and Further Discussion: The appellant filed this appeal on June 26, 2014. Eleven days
later, he visited the department to review the project file. The project planner went over the staff
PH1 - 4
Appeal of ARC approval of an addition to a single-family residence and creek setback exception
(ARC MI 175-13: 1335 Johnson Avenue) Page 5
report with Mr. Mueller, explaining the findings made in support of granting a creek setback
exception. Mr. Mueller did not find the information to be adequate, and proceeded with the
appeal.
SUMMARY
The grounds specified in Mr. Mueller’s notice of appeal are primarily requests for information
with the arguable exception of non-descript concerns of “setbacks” and “grandfathering non-
conforming use.” The Appellant’s comments also do not comment on the Commission’s
application of City standards and guidelines in approving the project. Staff therefore
recommends that Mr. Mueller’s appeal be denied, and that the decision of the Commission
approving the project be upheld.
CONCURRENCES
The project was reviewed by the Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities Departments, and
the Natural Resources Manager. Their comments were incorporated into conditions of approval
during architectural review of the project. The Natural Resources Manager supported the creek
setback exception because the site is already developed and the addition would have a minimal
impact on the creek or vegetation.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the appeal to a future date, with direction to staff and the applicants.
2. Direct staff to return to the City Council with the necessary findings to uphold the appeal and
deny the project.
Staff does not recommend this alternative. Staff believes that the reasons specified for this
appeal do not provide any basis for denial of the project. The grounds for appeal specified by
the appellant are not related to Community Design Guidelines or the granting of exceptions
to creek setback limitations; the issues under the purview of the Architectural Review
Commission in reviewing the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans (Reduced Size)
3. Appeal Form (Appeal Filed July 26, 2014)
4. Application Approval Letter, with Resolution (Dated June 25, 2014)
PH1 - 5
Appeal of ARC approval of an addition to a single-family residence and creek setback exception
(ARC MI 175-13: 1335 Johnson Avenue) Page 6
5. Staff Report and Hearing Minutes (ARC June 16, 2014)
6. Draft City Council Resolution
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-02\Appeal ARC Decision 1335 Johnson (Johnson-Oetzell)\Council_Agenda_Report.docx
PH1 - 6
C-C
R-2
R-2
R-2
O
O
O
O R-2
R-2-H
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2-H
O-S
R-2-H
R-2
O-S
O
PISMO
T
O
R
O
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
BUCH
O
N
PACIF
I
CMARS
H
P
E
N
N
Y
VICINITY MAP File No. 175-131335 Johnson Ave ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
PH1 - 7
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
PH1 - 8
PH1 - 9
PH1 - 10
PH1 - 11
PH1 - 12
PH1 - 13
PH1 - 14
PH1 - 15
PH1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 3
PH1 - 17
PH1 - 18
PH1 - 19
PH1 - 20
PH1 - 21
PH1 - 22
ATTACHMENT 4
PH1 - 23
PH1 - 24
PH1 - 25
PH1 - 26
PH1 - 27
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 1 Meeting Date: June 16, 2014
Item Number: 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a residential remodel involving a second floor addition and including a
creek setback exception allowing construction within an existing building footprint on a
developed site.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1335 Johnson Ave BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER.: ARC 175-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), approving the second-
floor addition to an existing residence, along with a creek setback exception, based on findings,
and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant and
Representative
Dan Ferreira
Zoning O-S; Office with the Special
Consideration overlay
General Plan Office
Site Area 21,025 sq ft (0.48 ac)
Application Complete January 13, 2014
Environmental Status Categorically Exempt as
New Construction of a
Small Structure (Guidelines
§15303)
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition to an existing studio residence. Also on
the site is an older residence with historical character, now used as offices. San Luis Obispo
Creek runs through the site, and associated riparian vegetation covers a substantial portion of the
site area. The residence is located partially within the required creek setback.
The Commission considered this application at a public hearing on May 19th and provided
direction to the applicant regarding design refinements, landscaping refinements, reduction of
building mass, and minimization of encroachment into the creek setback. The project design has
been substantially modified in response to the Commission’s direction, and the application is
returning to the Commission for consideration of final project approval.
ARC2 - 1
ATTACHMENT 5
PH1 - 28
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The role of the Commission is to review the project for consistency with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, including development standards and creek setback requirements, and with
the Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential development.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information and Setting
The project is proposed to be built on a half-acre site on the northwest corner of Johnson Avenue
and Pismo Street, in the Office (O) Zone. San Luis Obispo Creek traverses the southerly portion
of the site, bordered by a significant amount of riparian vegetation along the creek bank. The site
is developed with a four-bedroom single-family residence constructed prior to 1957, and a studio
cottage that was moved to the site in 1957. It is this studio residence that is being remodeled.
Site Size 21, 025 sq ft / 0.48 ac (145' wide, 145' deep)
Present Use &
Development
Offices (2,050 sq. ft.) in a converted residence, and a single-family dwelling
(studio cottage)
Topography Mostly flat. San Luis Obispo creek runs through a channel along the southerly
portion of the property
Access from Johnson Ave
Surround Use /
Zoning
Northeast: Office (O), typically in converted residences
East, South, and Southwest: Medium-Density Residential (R-2), single-family
residences
West and North: Community Commercial (C-C), shopping center anchored by
Albertson's and Rite-Aid
Figure 1: Revised Project (Rendering)
ARC2 - 2PH1 - 29
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The studio residence is proposed to be remodeled, adding a bathroom and a laundry room on the
ground floor and 3 bedrooms and 1 bath upstairs in a new second-floor addition. Small covered
porches will be constructed on the front and the rear of the residence. An existing parking space
behind the residence will be retained.
3.0 EVALUATION
Projects on “sensitive” sites or located along a creek or waterway are subject to architectural
review, and must be approved by the Architectural Review Commission unless the Director of
Community Development determines the project to be “minor or incidental”. The site is already
paved and developed, and new construction will take place within this developed area. This
project was initially determined to be minor, involving simply construction within an already-
developed site, and no intensification of use (i.e. to remain a single-family residence).
Much of the new construction for this project is proposed to take place within the creek setback
After reviewing the original project design, staff believed that there were potential design
changes for the project that would further reduce the need for the creek setback exception, and to
make the scale and character of the building more compatible with neighboring structures on the
site and in the neighborhood, in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Staff
is pleased with the design changes that have been made and believes that the changes have
addressed the concerns raised at the previous Commission hearing while at the same time
reducing encroachment into the creek setback. The following discussion evaluates the response
to each directional item provided by the Commissioners.
Design Refinements
1. Provide additional detailing similar to the adjacent structure on the project site to provide
better compatibility between the two structures. Detailing should include soffited eaves,
gable trim, window trim, and cornice molding.
Appropriate trim and detailing has been provided. The original design of the expanded residence
attempted to mimic, to some degree, the Neoclassical Rowhouse style of the adjacent residence
at 1333 Johnson, and further attention to detailing was required to achieve compatibility. The
revised design exhibits a Vernacular style that is itself compatible with the adjacent residence,
and those in its neighborhood, without the need to mimic individual details. As the style of the
residence is characterized by simple trim and little or no decoration, it may be unnecessary, or
even inappropriate to introduce decorative elements like gable trim and cornice molding.
2. Modify window design and proportion to create uniform window style throughout all
elevations; similar to the windows of the adjacent on-site structure.
3. Provide additional window details in the project drawings. Indicate the type of materials for
the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Include the materials and
dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. This
should include sectional window details.
ARC2 - 3PH1 - 30
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 4
The revised design introduces a uniform window style that is applied consistently and
harmoniously across all of the building elevations. White vinyl windows will be used, purposely
selected to match the form and quality of wood windows and surrounded by appropriately
proportioned wood trim. Drawings do not include details indicating dimensions. The applicant
will be prepared to discuss these details, and approval of the project can be made subject to
conditions of approval related to window dimensions.
4. Modify the design so that architectural features do not conflict with one another.
Originally, some elements like the belly-band across the building façade and the peaked porch
covering did not appear visually compatible with one “other. With the redesign, such conflicting
elements have been eliminated, and the revised plans show a harmonious design.
5. Modify the design to include wood, rather than vinyl, deck railings to provide a more natural
appearance.
Plans originally called for extensive use of vinyl material for deck and stairway railings at the
front, side, and rear of the house, but the external stairways and rear decks have been eliminated
with the revised design. Elevation drawings still show vinyl railings (“Wide-Plank – Craftsman
Style”) to be installed around the existing creek-side deck. With a reduced extent of railing,
limited to the perimeter of the existing ground floor deck, carefully chosen vinyl material might
be satisfactory. However, the use of wood for deck railings will provide a quality and
authenticity of material more in keeping with the intent of the Community Design Guidelines
(see Condition # 3 of the Draft Resolution).
Landscaping
6. Provide taller landscaping to help break up the massing at the northwest elevation; a
landscaped trellis may be appropriate.
The massing at the northwest elevation has been reduced and balanced by the elimination of rear
decks, a more harmonious and balanced window arrangement, and articulation between
horizontal Hardi-Plank siding at the bottom and vertical board-and-batten on the second floor. It
no longer appears that landscaping needs to be used to help break up massing on this elevation.
Figure 2: Elevations, front (east) and side (north), depicting window arrangement and detail
ARC2 - 4PH1 - 31
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 5
Approval of this project will be subject to the condition that a landscape plan be submitted for
staff review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits to construct the residence, and that
the plan include appropriate and attractive plantings that enhance the building architecture.
Massing and Form
7. Provide vertical and horizontal articulation at the northeast elevation. This may be
accomplished by providing a planar shift between the front deck wall and main façade to
reduce the apparent massing of the structure to provide visual interest.
The front wall that was proposed to enclose the creek-side deck and external stairway has been
eliminated. Articulation is now provided by a transition from the wall of the house to the deck
railing around the creek-side deck.
8. Provide an open-picket design for the upper floor rear deck railing (southwest elevation), in
place of solid siding.
The upper-floor rear deck and associated railing have been eliminated.
Creek Setback
9. Clearly indicate the top of the creek bank and associated 20-foot creek setback line on the
site plan.
A revised site plan more clearly delineates the top of creek bank and associated 20-foot creek
setback line, and better differentiates these from elevation contour lines.
10. The ARC is supportive of the proposed creek setback exception. The ARC can support
additional minor encroachment into the setback area to provide a higher quality design with
added articulation.
The revised design reduces the amount of new construction proposed to take place within the
creek setback, and provides superior design that responds to the constraints and opportunities of
the site. The external stairway proposed to be built over the creek-side deck has been eliminated.
Re-orientation of upstairs bedrooms along the length of the house has pulled some floor area out
of the setback at the rear. As an added benefit, this has provided all three bedrooms with window
space that looks out over the creek, rather than the driveway and parking lot.
In order to grant exceptions from creek setback requirements, several findings must be made,1
including:
There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography,
which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
with the same zoning;
1 SLOMC §17.16.025 G.4: Property Development Standards—Creek Setbacks—Exceptions
ARC2 - 5PH1 - 32
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 6
The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege – an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning;
Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project;
Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the
property. (“Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may
include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional
development on an already developed site, “reasonable development” may mean
no additional development considering site
constraints and the existing development’s
scale, design, or density.)
In this case, the site contains unique topography, namely
San Luis Obispo Creek, which greatly reduces the
developable area of the property. Further constraints are
presented by the adjacent residence, which precludes
placement of the subject residence any farther from the
creek bank.
The new design strikes a balance between the property
owner’s reasonable use of the property and the need to
protect the creek as a significant natural resource. It
responds to site constraints, minimizing encroachment
into the creek setback by eliminating the creek-side
external stairway and upper-floor landing, and
efficiently orienting upstairs bedrooms along the length
of the house. Quality design has made the most of a
small encroachment into an already paved and
developed portion of the creek setback.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Plans submitted with this application were reviewed by
the Building & Safety, Public Works, and Utilities
departments. Comments were provided related to
Parking and Driveway Standards, solid waste container storage, utilities services, and flood zone
mapping.
The Natural Resources Manager also reviewed the plans and conducted a site visit to assess the
approximate location of the creek setback and associated riparian vegetation. He indicated that
although portions of the addition are encroaching into the creek setback, new construction is
occurring within an already-developed portion of the site and is not expected to introduce
detrimental impacts to the creek or riparian vegetation. He noted the proximity of a sycamore
tree to the house and to portions of the proposed addition. To address these concerns, the
applicant will be required to conduct any necessary work on the tree under the direction of a
qualified arborist. These concerns would be addressed through conditions of any project
approval.
Figure 3: Encroachment (dotted)
Creek setback (solid)
Original encroachment (cross-hatch)
ARC2 - 6PH1 - 33
ARC 175-13 (1335 Johnson Ave)
Page 7
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Deny the application, finding that:
1.The project does not conform to the Community Design Guidelines because of
incompatibility with neighboring structures in scale, detailing, and character, and that
2.The findings necessary to grant an exception from the creek setback cannot be made
because redesign of the project that would reduce the need for an exception is possible,
and would not deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
5.2 Continue the project to a future date, providing the applicant with directional items.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Vicinity Map
3.Project Plans (Reduced Size)
Included in Committee Member Portfolio: Project Plans (11” x 17”)
ARC2 - 7PH1 - 34
ARC Minutes
June 16, 2014
Page 2
better without any lighting but supports neighborhood notification and input about the
potential addition of lighting. He supported the Draft Resolution as presented.
Commr. Wynn agreed with Commr. Curtis and stated that he would like the intricate
details of the railroad station to be replicated in the center panel. He suggested that the
artists collaborate with Pierre Rademaker on the lettering.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to approve the Draft
Resolution, which finds that the public art mural proposed for the Kyle Roofing
Company Warehouse building at 976 Leff Street meets the City’s Guidelines for Public
Art, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Nemcik, Andreen, Curtis, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. McCovey-Good and Root
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
2.1335 Johnson Avenue. ARCMI 175-13; Continued review of addition of three
bedrooms on the second floor of an existing studio residence including a creek
setback exception allowing construction within an existing building footprint on a
developed site; O-S zone; Joshua Jeschien, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution, approving the second-floor addition to an existing residence, along
with a creek setback exception, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
Commr. Curtis recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of this project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Joel Snyder, Caron Architects, stated he understood what the ARC wanted so he
designed a structure that reduced the impact on the creek with a simpler, more useable
plan that fits in well with the neighborhood.
Dan Ferreira, project contractor, stated that with this new design there will not be a need
to work inside the creek setback.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she thinks this is now a very nice project that minimizes
encroachment into the creek setback.
PH1 - 35
ARC Minutes
June 16, 2014
Page 3
Vice-Chair Wynn asked Mr. Snyder if he had considered making the entry porch roof
less wide to eliminate the small triangle of siding on each side.
Mr. Snyder responded that he had considered that but moving the support pillars in
made the building look taller and narrower.
Vice-Chair Wynn stated that this design is much better and results in a substantially
higher quality project that he can support but he wants Condition 3 left in.
Commrs. Ehdaie and Andreen agreed with Vice-Chair Wynn.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Vice Chair-Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, approving the Draft
Resolution, approving the second-floor addition to an existing residence, along with a
creek setback exception, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Curtis
ABSENT: Commrs. McCovey-Good and Root
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Ricci
1) July 7, 2014:
Conceptual review of a project at the corner of Marsh and Nipomo
(Foster’s Freeze) that had prior approval but did not get built; current
owner has acquired the lot to the south so the design has been modified.
University Square signs.
849 Mill Street, corner of Mill and Chorro, coming back for another read.
Conceptual review of a proposed rezoning for a hotel on a property just
past Alfano Motors on Calle Joaquin.
2) July 21, 2014:
Possible: Pacific Courtyards at Osos and Pacific, a redevelopment
project with a proposed zoning flip for residential and office uses; going
to the CHC next Monday night.
Two new industrial buildings on Suburban Road, one a brewery with
tasting room.
Marigold Center modifications to the monument signs.
Community Development Deputy Director Murry will ask for input on the
LUCE Draft EIR.
3) August 4, 2014:
New Housing Authority 20-unit affordable project on Humbert Avenue.
PH1 - 36
ATTACHMENT 6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION’S ACTION TO APPROVE AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND GRANTING A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR THE
PROJECT AT 1335 JOHNSON AVENUE (ARCMI 175-13)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing in the
Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 19,
2014, and initially reviewed project plans and continued action with direction to make further
design refinements; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, conducted a public hearing in the
Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 16,
2014, and approved an addition to a single-family residence and granted an exception from creek
setback limitations for a project in the Office (O) Zone; and
WHEREAS, Robert M. Mueller timely filed an appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission’s action on June 26, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 2nd, 2014, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission’s action; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the
Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The project conforms to the policies and goals of the City’s General Plan since
dwellings are allowed in the Office zone, and the project is well below the maximum
allowed density and, as conditioned, the project conforms to the City’s zoning
regulations.
2. The project is compatible in scale and character with nearby structures on the site and
in the neighborhood as the addition to the residence respects site constraints imposed
by existing development on the site, and the presence of the creek and associated
riparian vegetation.
PH1 - 37
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 2
3. The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
applicable to residential development on infill sites and the remodeled residence
responds to the site’s unique characteristics and fits into the City’s wider context
through its scale, siting, detailing, and overall character.
4. The location and design of the residence addition will minimize impacts to scenic
resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement. The residence addition will be constructed within an
already developed portion of the project site, and conditions of approval require
protection of the adjacent sycamore tree.
5. The creek setback exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing
flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies. An
existing drainage easement over the creek and its banks allows the City the
opportunity to provide such measures.
6. The creek setback exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted
plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. It
is limited to allowing a minor addition onto an existing structure within a developed
portion of the site.
7. There are circumstances applying to the site which do not apply generally to land in
the vicinity with the same zoning that would deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning. San Luis Obispo
Creek bisects the property and its creek banks and associated riparian vegetation
occupy a considerable portion of the property, significantly limiting its development
potential.
8. The creek setback exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege and
provides relief from specific and unique topographical features of the site in order to
allow reasonable use of the subject property.
9. The creek setback exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the area of the project or downstream. The addition to the
residence is within the existing building footprint. An elevation certificate has been
provided to confirm that the elevation of the finished floor of the residence is above
the base flood height.
10. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project. The portion
of the property not occupied by creek, creek banks, and riparian vegetation is
developed with two structures and a parking area with no alternate location in which
to construct the addition to this residence.
11. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the
property. As there is no alternate location for an addition to this residence, further
redesign of the project would effectively preclude an addition to the residence.
PH1 - 38
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 3
12. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of an addition to a single-family
residence in the Office (O) Zone, which permits residential land use as described in
the CEQA Guidelines (§15303 – New Construction of Small Structures). The
addition is minor and limited to the developed portion of the site, and does not
introduce any additional impacts to the creek.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
Architectural Review Commission’s action to grant approval to an addition to a single-family
house and to grant an exception to creek setback limitations, subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. Construction drawings submitted for building permits must be in substantial
compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet
(labeled and listed as sheet number 2) must be included in working drawings listing
all conditions of project approval. Any change to approved design, colors, materials,
landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community
Development Director or the Architectural Review Commission, as appropriate.
2. Any modifications to the approved color palette shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of
working drawings.
3. A wood railing shall be used for decks to provide a more natural appearance
consistent with guidance contained in the Community Design Guidelines.
4. No trees may be removed except in conformance with Tree Regulations (SLOMC
Chapter 12.24). Plans submitted for construction permits must include tree protection
measures for the protection of the sycamore tree adjacent to the south side of the
residence. Trimming or maintenance of the tree necessary to complete this project
must be conducted by a certified arborist.
5. Riparian vegetation within the creek setback must be protected. No construction
activities are permitted within the creek setback except within the building footprint
of the existing studio residence and within the existing paved parking area.
6. Plans submitted for construction permits must include a landscaping plan consistent
with §6.2 of the Community Design Guidelines for review and approval by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any permits for
construction of the residence.
PH1 - 39
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 4
7. All exterior lighting must be oriented, recessed, or shielded to prevent light trespass
and pollution, in compliance with Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning
Regulations Chapter 17.23).
Public Works
8. All sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, & sidewalk shall be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
9. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the parking and
driveway standards for the proposed parking lot changes. The plan shall include all
space and bay width dimensions, slopes, signing, and striping per City Engineering
Standard #2250. The accessible space shall comply with the California Building
Code.
10. The building plan submittal shall clarify the storage location for the solid, recycle,
and green waste containers. The container areas shall be screened or concealed in
accordance with the Zoning Regulations.
11. The existing elevation certificate is acceptable for building permit review and
issuance. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is recommended to remove the
structure from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Unless a LOMR is provided,
an updated contemporary FEMA elevation certificate shall be provided at the
completion of construction and prior to final inspection approvals.
Utilities
12. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s
existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points
of connection at the City water and sewer mains in Johnson Avenue.
13. The proposed residential unit shall have a separate water meter.
14. The property’s existing 4” sewer laterals must pass a video inspection to the point of
connection at the City main, including repair or replacement, as part of the project.
The CCTV inspection shall be submitted with the Building Permit application for
review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building
Permit for the residential remodel.
15. The applicant shall provide written verification from San Luis Garbage Company
that the proposed trash and recycling enclosure location and size is adequate to serve
the project. Tom Martin of San Luis Garbage Company can be contacted at 805-543-
0875.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
PH1 - 40
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 5
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 20xx.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH1 - 41
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 42