Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2002, PH-4 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) APPROVAL OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH TEMPOR council 1-2;e-IV, j agcnaa Repout PH_ C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planne SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) APPROVAL OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH TEMPORARY DWELLING ON A SENSITIVE SITE WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS: MIKE & TRACY HARRIS, APPLICANTS; DEVIN & CHARMAINE GALLAGHER, APPELLANTS. 2713 MEADOW STREET ARC 120-01 CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC decision. DISCUSSION Situation The City has received an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision approving a new-detached garage with a temporary dwelling at 2713 Meadow Street (see Attachment 1-Vicinity Map, attachment 2- site plan & elevations, and attachment 3- applicant's ARC statement). Devin & Charmaine Gallagher, owners of the adjacent vacant property at 390 Lawrence, have appealed the ARC's decision on several grounds noting that the project may have a significant adverse impact cn a sensitive site and the project is inconsistent with height and setback standards. Architectural Review Commission Action Under normal circumstances, construction of a single-family home in the R-1 district does not require ARC approval. This site, however, has been deemed a sensitive site requiring ARC approval, since it contains significant oak trees, moderate slopes and poor drainage associated with excessive groundwater. The applicant was also seeking an exception for a 3-foot side yard setback for a structure that normally requires a 9-foot setback. On December 3, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission voted 4-2 to approve the project, allowing a 5-foot setback as recommended by staff, instead of the 3-foot setback sought by the applicant. Commissioners Lopes and Stevenson liked the building design, but did not support granting a side yard exception. They were concerned with the existing trees and groundwater on the adjacent parcel, and felt the structure should comply with the R-1 yard requirements. In addition to the recommended findings, the ARC also found that the building location was outside of the open space easement, (see attachment 4), and preserved the significant trees on the site. The Commission added a condition requiring the roof design to be modified so that the southerly four feet of the roof area could not be used as a deck, thereby resolving potential overlook concerns. Council Agenda Report—2773 Meadow Street Appeal of ARC action on ARC 120-01 Page 2 The ARC generally liked the site design, building architecture and landscaping. They found the project to be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Attachment 5 is a copy of the minutes from the December P meeting and Attachment 6 is a copy of the December P ARC staff report. Appellant's Position On December 11, 2001, Devin & Charmaine Gallagher appealed the ARC's decision stating several concerns with the approval including; inappropriate height vs. setback, lack of consideration of the site's sensitive status, placement of a structure in a watercourse, construction of a second dwelling unit, and creation of potential viewshed conflicts. They plan to eventually construct their home on the adjacent vacant lot overlooking the Hams' property. The appellants expect the site to be developed, however they are unhappy with the design and position of the new structure. Attachment 7 is a copy of the appellant's statement. Evaluation The proposed development required ARC review since it is proposed on a sensitive site due to slope, oak trees and groundwater. The site also contains an open space easement that includes the rear of the subject property and portions of the Gallagher's adjacent lot. The open space easement appears to have been established to protect the numerous trees along the border of these properties. The proposed construction does not appear to impact the easement, however, habitat fencing should be installed prior to any construction in order to best protect the easement area and its resources. The proposed construction is outside of the open space easement and is proposed within a generally flat yard area behind the existing residence. Staff has evaluated each of the appellant's comments from the December 11, 2001 letter. Appellants comments are in italics with staff's response following: 1. The proposed structure is inconsistent with City planning and development standards for: a. Height vs. setback; b. Proposed movable skylight structure may constitute a portion of the structure... c. Determination of a sensitive site. The Architectural Review Commission has the authority to approve exceptions for setback standards when proposed in conjunction with a project that requires architectural review. The Zoning Ordinance allows a reduction of a side yard to a minimum of five feet as has been approved by the ARC. The proposed height of the building will not shadow the adjacent lot, since the adjacent lot is significantly higher and is located to the south of the proposed structure. The adjacent lot is also currently vacant, contains relatively steep slopes and contains significant oak trees. The setback exception meets the required findings (see attachment 6). The ARC considered the movable skylight when the structure was considered for a setback exception. The movable skylight is actually an opening skylight that allows ventilation and roof access. Since the skylight is moveable, the appellant felt that when it is open it would protrude //—c7? Council Agenda Report—2 r-i 3 Meadow Street Appeal of ARC action on ARC 126-01 Page 3 above the allowable height limit. However, the skylight opening mechanism does not raise the skylight, instead it slides open at the same elevation. The skylight is a part of the structure and is required to be no more than 25 feet above grade, consistent with the R-1 district. The site has been determined a sensitive site and therefore received appropriate review by the ARC as recommended by staff. Two trees are proposed for removal in order to accommodate the driveway for the garage. The City Arborist has reviewed the site and found that the two trees, a 14" diameter Live Oak and a 12" acacia are not significant trees and could be removed with the City's tree permit process. The building site is adjacent to an open space easement. The open space easement appears to have been established to protect the numerous trees along the border of these properties. The proposed construction does not appear to impact the easement, however, habitat fencing should be installed prior to any construction in order to best protect the easement area and its resources. 2. Placement of the garage/residence within a watercourse is inappropriate. The site does not contain a visible watercourse. City maps do not identify any creeks for the project vicinity. The site does, however, show evidence of significant groundwater. The adjacent property owned by the appellants does have indications of extensive ground water including an underground concrete structure designed to capture the groundwater. Following a notice of the appeal, staff visited the site with the City's Natural Resource Manager and City Biologist in order to assess the potential biological impacts of the building site. The site does contain evidence of subsurface moisture, however it was concluded that the site is not a sensitive resource nor is it a significant habitat. The Natural Resource Manager concluded with the following comments: "What the site appears to have is a seep or seeps caused by past grading which in the absence of maintenance have developed some non-native species associated with wet sites. These include calla lilies and umbrella sedge. Other plants include a variety of grasses. There are no shrubs or trees associated with the wet area. The calla lilies and sedges are not numerous, nor do they constitute a significant habitat. The site gives the impression of an area receiving some flow from the cistern on the neighboring property, possibly augmented by local groundwater". Since the project is within a relatively level yard area requiring minimal site grading, subsurface water is not likely to be impacted by the proposal. Proposed construction will require a building permit, which will likely require a soils report and construction standards that will address the potential groundwater issues. The project proposal does not appear to create significant impacts to significant natural or biological resources. 3. The proposed garage/residence creates oversight(view) conflicts for the proposed use of the adjacent property. The appellant would like to build a residence on the adjacent lot to the south. Although the appellant's adjacent lot is significantly sloped and much higher than the applicants proposed construction, the appellant is concerned about the potential viewshed impacts. Since the applicant 41 - 3 Council Agenda Report—2'/-13 Meadow Street — Appeal of ARC action on ARC 126-01 Page 4 is not requesting height exceptions and is located downhill from a vacant lot, staff does not anticipate significant viewshed impacts. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance recognize impacts to solar exposure and loss of views when considering projects in the R-1 district. The applicant's proposal does not appear to have solar impacts and does not interrupt the view from an existing residence. If the appellant does construct a residence on the adjacent lot, the applicants proposed 25-foot high garage and art studio will be visible from the property, however the project does not appear to substantially block significant views. 4. Quality alternatives do exist... The appellant would like the applicant to explore alternatives such as sharing a driveway with an adjacent lot or changing the orientation of the structure in order to increase the setback to meet standards. As with many projects, there may be alternatives to the proposed building's placement on the site. Changes to the project may require additional costs such as demolition of the existing residence, cost of a shared driveway or other options. The proposed design was favored by the applicants and approved by the ARC. 5. The proposed garage/residence is inconsistent with the staff report of the minor subdivision approved for this property on November 18, 1997. The subject property was created in 1997 as a two-parcel subdivision that was originally proposed by the appellant, Devin Gallagher. The staff report prepared for the subdivision mentioned that the development of the lots will require care, major trees are to be saved and both sites should be considered sensitive sites due to tree canopy. The project has been reviewed by the ARC for its sensitive designation, and significant native trees are avoided with the proposed project. At the rear of the site, a 14" diameter oak tree (Quercas agrifolia) and a 12" diameter Acacia are proposed for removal. A consulting arborist has reported that the oak tree is in decline and should be removed (see attachment 9). Upon a site visit by staff, the oak tree does not appear to be dead, however the base of the tree is growing out of the base of a utility pole and the utility pole is leaning from the growth of the tree trunk. Regardless of the proposed construction, the tree may have to be removed or could be significantly damaged upon the required replacement or removal of the leaning utility pole. The City Arborist has recently reviewed the site for the proposed tree removal and found that the trees are not a significant resource. The City Arborist has required street trees to be planted for this project. Any tree removal for this property will require review and approval by the City Arborist. Additional tree plantings may be necessary as required by the City Arborist in order to replace any trees removed with the project. In summary, the proposed construction does not appear to conflict with the subdivision map conditions or former negative declaration prepared for this property. 6. Additional concerns: creation of a secondary dwelling in an R-I neighborhood and stairwell to a third floor deck. The applicant is proposing to create a temporary dwelling above the new garage while the existing main residence is remodeled. Upon completion of the main residence remodel, the temporary 'T' `T Council Agenda Report—2i-13 Meadow Street Appeal of ARC action on ARC 120-01 Page 5 residence would be converted into an artist's studio, eliminating any cooking facilities and plumbing hookups. Staff included conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the R-1 district, therefore maintaining only one independent residence on the property at all times. The occupancy in the main house would be restricted during construction of the remodel and occupancy of the artist's studio would be restricted following occupancy of the main residence. The proposed garage/artists studio does have a stairway leading to a skylight and an outdoor deck on the rooftop. The ARC added a condition of approval to limit the use of the roof deck to the north portion of the roof away from the appellants' property. The ARC approved the proposed design with a stairwell and roof deck, consistent with the height standards for the R-1 district. The highest part of the structure and skylight does not exceed 25 feet above natural grade. FISCAL IMPACT No significant fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of action taken on this appeal. ALTERNATIVES 1. Modify the approved setback exception requiring a standard 9—foot setback, requiring an alternative orientation of the proposed garage and studio. 2. Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and finding that there is substantial evidence in the record that demonstrates that the project is not consistent with the findings to allow setback exceptions,the project will impact a sensitive site, and negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. Continue the item for additional information or study, and specify the additional information or analysis needed. There is no mandated deadline for action on this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment l: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced-scale Project Plans Attachment 3: Applicant's statement to ARC Attachment 4: Open Space Easement Attachment 5: Minutes from the ARC Meeting on December 3, 2001 Attachment 6: ARC Staff Report dated December 3, 2001 - Attachment 7: Appellant's Statement, December 11,2001 Attachment 8: Appellant's letter to ARC dated November 12, 2001 Attachment 9: Arborist report by Firma, August 22, 2001, 2713 Meadow Street Attachment 10: Draft Resolution "A"- denying the appeal Attachment 11: Draft Resolution `B"-upholding the appeal r+uactn�ienL i I R-1 R-1-SP R- :5 fV b$EC,T i�r .ate, APeb1RaY5 -1 R-1 -1-PD C/OS-4O VICINITY MAP ARC 120-01 N 2713 MEADOW A _ Attachment 2 21 all j 9n :y i"q a „sb. qq 2 P� g� � YT p,g 1.e £ y e £ay 4QT3 it _�. E it 6 a. P' egP 1 ga 6 e E Z3S Y oil y �p: y7 ;' 9 'e§ � it 3'a i iSYg Tia .y sag ;q. y 3 ` # {4 3 a = Nd I 3a P`aegoy a� s# .; .ygxgggP 4 §oP1ZII4: is 7¢ I6 i � r cS.• ° # F. r. P4 g i:= S$ $� a5 F� ' �Y .� � FS 3• 1; ..ells@P RIXIiI Nil m jj xl PROS :: @$gg S yTe6�� S X4� ta§ 4 •yg xTpp � a 2 r. 6� � dG # Q 1 C ). 683.f5_ ?26£LT [}xE {q{ggyp f ° a; Yg ✓;.}Yy # I�a § ! '.§ C^ {y# ## a 'g5a a 2 Sye6 y aY 6a—iY jjj 1 1 q 1 I 1 I � 1 y�y�I�I{{pSl�!JJ��J�Cd�Ye LRBOG992[AYYg��R¢i� 1 \ „ 1 , I I � 1 1 , \ I 'III I 1111 1� � 1 I II;i I w 1 1 I 1 1 1 I � 1 1 , ` 11 J J f f 5. a �- A 3 x P ---`-- — �— --- — _ X a Q g0 Sty [ Q I } d _I '� � • - �- .-; _� 0000000®000 I Rr is 3 p, nS y■ ppp s A & v F tYr iQ s v] y 0 0000 0 000000 4-7 Attachment 2 0 TYP ] TYP I TOP OF PARAPET --T2]358' 25'-T' AFF I I I I I I I I -_._ - - - - TOP OF ROOF DECK -- 1 22'-7" TO 22'-1" AFF 'EQ!EQ f t i i i \ 1 ' e SECOND FLOOR TYP I - 10'-e" A IF Oi TYP 5 9� A4 ----- _ —---- GARAGE 24800- O'-O° FF F North Elevation 5CALE 1/4"•1-'0" i 2 TYP r------ -i I I I I I I I I I I I L —1 —L I TYP OTTP South Elevation AY SCAM: 1/4".1-'0" /��/f Attachment 2 2 TYP i TOP OF PARAPET A 11 I I I I I I I I L-- ___ L______�----- ------� TOP OF ROOF DECK ..22rJ"TO 22'.1' A.F.F. A4 y P pp i I1 E i 1 I A4 T O I. d I. r TYP Ip TOP OF TILE I 2 I Aa TYP ___—_—__— _—___ —__—— _ TYP TOP OF PLATE -- W-3" AF.F. FL::'- 'I f ENTRY O'-B" A.F.F. East Elevation SCALE: 1/4-1.1--0.1 RIDGE OF SKTLIGHT 2 TYP 127475'1 26'-9" A.F.F. _ TOP OF PARAPET 25'-7" A.F.F. I I I I I I I I I I I I L------------L--------------------j 0 b N F L7 y I Z 7 SII i \1 of O 5 I r � TYP m W (7 I � I W G SECOND FLOOR • NI 10'-B" A.F.F. O 0 0 z � E a 1 I B_a I TYP BACK OF GARAGE O'-5"�A- West Elevation z�8 SCALE: 1/4".1•'0" �-9 Attachment 3 Project Description / Statement Proposed New Residence 2713 Meadow Street The following is a project description and side yard exception statement for a requested Administrative Use Permit application. The applicants and property owners, Mike and Tracey Harris, wish to design and construct a "temporary" single family residence and garage structure at 2713 Meadow Street, in the city of San Luis Obispo. The subject property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family, and the proposed use is allowed by code. The site currently contains a single 1,400 s.f. residential structure, with is conforming with regards to zoning and building codes. This request is to construct a detached 2-car garage with a "temporary" dwelling above. The owners ultimate goal is to completely remodel the existing 1,400 s.f. residence while living in the dwelling above the garage. Upon completion of the remodel, the garage dwelling use will be discontinued, and the space turned into an office/studio space. The proposed project is planned in a neo-traditional aesthetic. The current schematic designs call for the existing main residence to remain located near the street, with the proposed detached garage structure located behind and to the rear of the main house. This is in keeping with the general "traditional" theme of the existing neighborhood, as well as providing a more pedestrian-oriented streetscape fareade. Per Section 17.16 of the zoning code, the applicants are requesting a setback exception for this project. This exception is being requested in order to compensate for existing conditions/easements at the property, to accommodate and provide adequate driveway turning radii at the new garage, and to maximize usable outdoor living spaces available at the site. Side Yard Setback Exception Request: A setback exception is being requested for the side yard of the proposed detached garage structure. Pursuant to section 17.16.020.E.ii, the applicant is requesting a 3' setback for the side yard of the detached garage, where a 9' setback is normally required. There exists a dedicated open-space easement to the west of the proposed structure, which encompasses 2,010 s.f, of area, which is over 25% of the entire property. This recorded open- space easement requires that the garage be setback from the rear property line approximately 35', where only a 7' setback would normally be required. The requested side yard setback would allow the owners to gain back useful rear yard area and required driveway backup space through this side yard reduction. In addition, the setback exception is consistent with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood, and would have a greater street yard setback than the main structure (approximately 75'). Summary: Given the proposed overall project and the existing easement encumbrance on the property, the owners feel that the exception requested is not only reasonable, but will allow for attractive and appropriate addition to the existing neighborhood context. g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n 1880 santa barb a,a street suite "c" San suis obosp0 . ca I i t u, n i a i'::40 phone 805 78j 7880 tan 805 783 1881 a-mall g9nrc,n@9arciaai chdc.;l-rn cote• 41 /� - Attachment 3 Design Justification Overview Project: Harris Residence Location: 2713 Meadow Street, San Luis Obispo, California Project Description: Design and construction of a temporary family residence over a new detached garage. The project will be located behind an existing residence to be remodeled. The site is located at 2713 Meadow Street on an existing R-1 lot, in the city of San Luis Obispo. 1 W S.I W W W W V - W Parameters: Existing mid-block residential parcel in "old-town" San Luis Obispo. There are new single family units under construction to the west and north, with an undeveloped site to the south. Parcel is encumbered with an existing open space easement, which restricts any development within the entire+/-35' of the western boundary. Project Background: The owner/applicants are long term residents of San Luis Obispo County (29 and 15 years respectively). They currently reside in the city of San Luis Obispo in a 1,100 s.f. apartment. With a growing family, they began exploring options to possess their own home. Their search for a new home led them to 2713 Meadow Street. This parcel was being offered as "land" only, since the existing house was in need of major structural and architectural improvements. It is the goal of the new owners to remodel the existing house to bring it up to a"habitable" level. At the same time, they intend to live on the land during the remodel by building this 835 s.ftemporary residence over the new detached garage. Upon completion of the primary residence, the new owners intend to convert the temporary residence into an artist studio and office for themselves, since one of a owners is a fine artist. Attachment 3 Design Statement: Design a single family residential project that addresses the short term and long term architectural and programmatic needs and desires of the owners, while addressing these issues of site encumbrances, existing neighborhood context and architectural compatibility. r r r r r r r 1 r t Design Goals: • Design should reflect an eclectic aesthetic derived from both client input and neighborhood context. • Design should be sensitive to the natural environment by utilizing the +/-35' open-space easement area as a required setback to the west as well as an unadulterated visual landscape feature on the site. r,, • Site design should embrace neo- traditional design parameters by addressing the street with the f" residence and placing the (detached) r- garage in the rear Aal r � r" • Site design should create both quasi- public and private outdoor"rooms" • Site design should reflect the applicants need for an adequate back yard for family gatherings and functions -� • Building design should be contextually sensitive to the '%:' neighborhood while addressing the J a applicants desire for a spare and elegant residence embellished with v, \ subtle and sensitive detailing. • Design should be "timeless" and should age gracefully. / I Attachment 3 r - r _ r r r r t k tk r ' r rti l r r Al r r r AIT. r 1 r Design Vocabulary: In designing the garage and unit above, the design team endeavored to create a spare and elegant structure retaining trace vestiges of ornamentation in the tradition of early Modernists such as Adolph Loos in Vienna and Irving Gill in Los Angeles. The embellishments come in the form of Travertine stone flooring, Travertine window sills, and Travertine parapet caps, as well as antique wrought iron grille work from Tunisia, and antique tile from Pakistan. In addition, copper overflow and balcony drains, cast Cimarron scuppers are added. Other elegant details include tall casement windows and thick walls a la Parisian "Hotels", 19'x' century styled metal work on the interior and a special plaster product installed over a "faux" door to give the impression of a remodel to an antiquated structure. This special product allows the door infill to telegraph through the plaster. It is also the intention of the applicant to allow the building to stain naturally to gain a rich patina, hence the use of copper and stone in close proximity to white cement plaster walls. The plaster will be a smooth steel trowel "Santa Barbara" finish to, again, recall the work of tum of the century Modernists. Finally, future phases are to include colorful fountain tile in the style of Alhambra in Granada, Spain along with channels and a lap pool. r r 4 r F�''•. r r - � r r r 1 r .r r r t /3 Affachme'-fil-4 EXHIBIT "F" Lot Line, A& t ment LLA -qq .lLtc4o b .... ...... 5'—ALE 1 400 01Lj2�5 PARCEL 2 F- Meters pOI ✓ 0 7.620m R -50.460m R 50, 30, 420 N,5,5-36-01-k-4 36.100m, 1250.00'R ti 0 0 phi eR LOT A Nt �c5 661.27 sm(Mort) 1161.56 sm(old) WOV 3.024m R aaclq i �r ""o Z .r.p.0.5. ............. N57-4q46'kV 7.065m Now Z LOT S G�p 12100 557.55 sm(old) 41 Q) V 716.45& theei) QPM ON U!2)-)Er, T 41 ID A. N&5"34Sq'kV 42.063m New At P.O.B. (D-2) Ily cri Kf -c" ............ E 0) 7l Q ad \N h pr ....... ....... L07C bqq.06 sm (old) 1146.27 Sm(no") 90' 30' 30.660M M, 101.25-R N56*3426'PY 4.3.631m M,t-06'35'40'kV 1429.15'R Drive -—-—-—-—-—- END OF DOCUMENT Attachment 5 Draft SAN LUIS OPISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Hana Novak Staff: Associate Planner John Shoals, Phil Dunsmore and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce The minutes of October 15 2001 were accepted as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. PROJECTS: 1. 748 Foothill Boulevard. ARC 151-01; Review of a proposal to demolish an existing residence and develop four apartment units; R-4 zone; Mel Noe, applicant. This item was continued to a date uncertain, without discussion. 2. 2713 Meadow Street. ARC 120-01; Review of a new detached garage with a temporary dwelling on a sensitive site and reduced side yard from 9-feet to 3-feet; R-1 zone; Mike and Tracy Harris, applicants. Associate Planner John Shoals presented staff report recommending final approval of the project, and a 5-foot side yard for the detached garage, based on findings and subject to conditions as noted in the staff report. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there is a structure on the roof that is 7-inches higher than the allowed 25 feet. Associate Planner Shoals replied that it is an architectural wall treatment. Vice-Chair Lopes felt the ARC should decide if the two oak trees on the site are significant for the development. Associate Planner Shoals noted there is a recorded open space easement on this site and the two trees shown that are outside of the open space will be removed. Attachment 5 Draft ARC Minutes - December 3, 2001 Page 2 Michael Harris, applicant, stated they would be living in the garage in the back, which has been altered to a studio and office, while the front house is being remodeled, noting they would get a permit for occupancy. Chairperson Stevenson asked what the rational was on the site design. Tom DeSaunto, project architect, stated that the applicant purchased the property knowing that the existing residence was not habitable. He stated they want to provide a temporary residence while building a detached garage, and then convert the garage into an art studio and office before they move into the remodeled house. He stated they are proposing a 3-foot setback, but could proceed with the 5-foot setback and the 25- foot height limit. Commr. Howard asked why the applicant is requesting an additional 7-inches to the height of the building. Mr. DeSaunto replied the 25.7-feet is the finished floor. He commented on a letter from the arborist which confirms the oak tree was already dead and it could be dangerous to the existing residence. Chairperson Stevenson stated that the City is going to insist that the kitchen facilities be removed so it is not easily reconverted to a residence. Mr. DeSaunto stated that the staff stipulated that all of it would have to be removed before they moved into the new residence. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there is a stairway or some type of access to the roof. Mr. DeSaunto replied that the skylight is automated and it does open. There is a guardrail on top and you step up to the ladder through the skylight to the roof. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there are walls around the roof deck that are 3-feet high. Mr. DeSaunto replied that it varies, but 3-feet is the minimum. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if this meets safety codes and asked if there are windows that provide some light. Mr. DeSaunto replied they are proposing very tall windows that bring in as much natural light as possible. Vice-Chair Lopes was uncomfortable with the proposed grading into the hillside. He felt the 4-foot cut could describe the reason for locating the garage closer to the north side of the property line. Mr. DeSaunto noted the 35-foot open space easement close to the main house presents issues. Attachment 5 Draft ARC Minutes December 3, 2001 Page 3 Commr. Schultz noted that allowing the temporary dwelling does not have any effects on the open space easement. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Devin Gallagher, landowner adjacent to this project site, stated they sold this property because of the power lines on this property and felt it was not a buildable piece of property. He stated this is a sensitive site, and the width of the driveway is only 9-feet 3-inches from the edge of the building and the edge of the retaining wall. He expressed concern about the setback against the open space area, feeling that although this is open space, it isn't logical to use this area as a driveway turnaround. He noted that the City didn't ask for a 12-foot wide apron; they asked for a 6-foot driveway apron. Richard Stevens, property owner, felt this is not a good pattern for the neighborhood. He stated he spoke to staff when the lot split was applied for, and was assured that both lots could be built on with variances. George Garcia stated he had reviewed the plans and agreed that the footings and the steps in the area, along with the ground water are going to be issues regardless of what is proposed. Associate Planner Shoals stated the privacy overlook issue may not be great on adjoining neighbors, and may need to be discussed. Public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Lopes felt the site design is crowding the property to the south and the 5-foot setback would be an issue. Commr. Howard felt the project is attractive and would add to the aesthetic value of this area. Commr. Rawson felt the project has a nice design. He recognized that the site is restricted by the open space easements. Commr. Boudreau commented on the good work of the architect, but agreed with Commr. Lopes on the constricted open space. Commr. Schultz expressed his concern with the constriction of open space. Chairperson Stevenson concurred also with Commr. Lopes. He stated moving the building away from the slope would accomplish the setback issue. Chairperson Stevenson stated that if there is going to be a motion in support of this project, he would like to call the Commissions' attention to the findings, and wants to be clear that this'is going to be approved if the motion prevails. r 4-1/ - Attachment 5 Draft ARC Minutes December 3, 2001 Page 4 Commr. Rawson moved to grant final approval based on the findings and subiect to the conditions listed in the staff reportwith an additional finding regarding the side yard exception and with an added condition regarding the 5-foot side yard setback as noted in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Howard. Commr. Rawson suggested that a condition be proposed that the 4-feet on the southerly part of the roof deck not be used for a roof deck, which would bring it into compliance. Commr. Boudreau noted they should make a reference to the open space in the findings. Commr. Rawson added a finding and modified condition 4 and added condition: 12. To minimize potential privacy impacts the roof design shall be modified so that the southerly four feet of the roof area cannot be used as a deck.. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Howard, Boudreau, Schultz NOES: Vice-Chair Lopes and Chairperson Stevenson ABSENT: Commr. Novak The motion carried 4-2. 3. Downtown Area. ARC 172-01; Review and possible modification of the City's standard street furniture color; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented staff report, recommending acceptance of a new color scheme and finish for street furniture and light standards. Chairperson Stevenson asked for clarification about the streetlights. He had understood the Commission would be looking at pedestrian streetlights, but felt this was a very expensive CIP item. Associate Planner Dunsmore stated it would be coming before the ARC within the next year. Vice-Chair Lopes asked how the existing streetlights downtown would be treated, and asked if the street lights on Marsh Street were period streetlights. Planner Dunsmore replied that they would not be changed out all at one time. He stated they would be replaced with a new color, or be replaced as the need arises. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the existing galvanized steel poles would be color coated this dark green. Planner Dunsmore explained the plan is to replace the entire structure with a new design, and at the same time order it pre-painted with a powder-coated material. 4 -13- Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # Z BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner (781-7166 MEETING DATE: December 3, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development RevieJ FILE NUMBER: ARC 120-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2713 Meadow Street SUBJECT: Construction a detached garage with temporary residence and a reduced side yard on property located near Meadow Street and Lawrence Drive; R-I zone. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project and a 5-foot side yard for the detached garage, based on findings and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation The applicants would like to improve the property at 2713 Meadow Street. Their goal is to construct a detached two-car garage with temporary residence above, and to completely remodel the existing residence while living in the temporary dwelling above the garage. Upon completion of the primary residence, the new temporary residence would be converted into an artist studio and office. City Code does not typically required architectural review of a single family home on a R-I zoned lot. This particular project requires architectural review because the property is a sensitive site due to the existence of significant oak trees, vegetation and some moderate to steep slopes. In order to proceed with construction, the applicant must obtain City approval of the architectural plans and construction drawings. They are asking the ARC to grant final approval to the project and the side yard exception request. Data Summary Address: 2713 Meadow Street Applicant/Property owner: Mike and Tracy Harris Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1) General Plan: Low-Density Residential Environmental status: Class 3 - construction of two single-family dwellings in a residential zone. The Community Development Director approved a negative declaration with mitigation measures November 1997. Project action deadline: January 15, 2002 26 ARC 120-01 (Harris Res :.;e) Attachment 6 Page 2 - Site description The rectangular-shaped lot is approximately 7,650 square feet (0.18 acres) in size. It is generally flat (less than 5% slope) with steeper slopes towards the southerly property line. Many small and large oak trees and other trees live on the westerly portion of the site and the adjoining parcel to the south. There is a recorded open space easement over the westerly 35+/- feet of the project site. The site is developed with a small residential structure, a concrete patio, and an unimproved driveway. There are two Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) unrecorded easements over the property for electrical power lines. The site is situated in an older residential neighborhood. There are new single-family residences under construction to the north and west, with an undeveloped parcel to the south. Attachment 1 is a vicinity map, Attachment 2 the tentative parcel map and Attachment 3 a lot line adjustment map with the current parcel sizes and the open space easement. Project Description The project is construction of a detached two-car garage with temporary residence above, and a side yard setback exception to allow a 3-foot yard where a 9-foot yard is required for the new structure. The proposed project utilizes a neo-traditional design concept. The existing residence would remain near the street and the detached garage at the rear of the lot (behind the house). A driveway will provide primary access from Meadow Street. Project parking will consist of two enclosed spaces. Attachment 4 is the applicants' design statement and Attachment 5 is a reduced-scale site plan. The building design is modem style architecture with rectilinear forms and parapets walls. Building materials include stucco, wooden windows,built-up roofing and wooden sectional doors. Architectural embellishments include travertine windowsills, travertine parapet caps, antique wrought iron gill work and antique tile. The proposed building color is white with travertine accents. Building elevations are included as Attachment 6. A colors and material board will be available at the hearing. EVALUATION 5. Subdivision Requirements In November of 1997, the Community Development Director approved a tentative map for minor subdivision of the property located at Meadow Street and Lawrence Drive (County file no. 94- 119, City file no. MS 34-97). The approved minor subdivision required the installation of street ARC 120-01 (Harris Res ce) Attachment 6 Page 3 improvements along Meadow Street and Lawrence Drive, utilities to each parcel, street trees and various other Code requirements. Attachment 7 is a copy of the Director's Action. The approved subdivision requires any new buildings be located at least 12 feet vertically and at least six feet horizontally from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) conductors. Project plans show an existing utility near the new structure removed and note that all relocated utility lines will be underground near the near the northerly property line. Staff finds that the proposed design satisfies the PG&E requirement. 2. Site Design and Building Architecture The site plan shows a 10- to 12-foot wide driveway between the existing residence and the north property line. City Parking and Driveway Standards require a 10-foot minimum driveway for this residential project. A 10-foot wide standard driveway at this location would not allow for any planting on the north side of the house. Therefore, staff recommends that a "Hollywood" driveway be used in the design. The building design is consistent with the scale and massing of other residences in the neighborhood. The building architecture is attractive and includes many of the same features and materials as other residences in the neighborhood. Building elevations are included as Attachment 6. 3. Compliance with Zoning Regulations and Development Standards The revised project complies with the R-1 zone property development standards for density, lot coverage and parking. In March of 1997, the City's Hearing Officer approved a use permit to allow a density of 7 units per acre on the project site and the adjoining parcel to the south. This action established a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit for the project site. Project plans note that the site will ultimately be developed with one dwelling and a detached garage with artist studio/office above. City Code allows maximum lot coverage of 40% in the R-1 zone; the new structure and existing residence would cover about 27% the site. The project is required to provide two parking spaces. Project plans show a two-car garage. The project does not comply with the R-1 standards for building height. A maximum 25-foot tall building is allowed in the R-1 zone district, and up to 35 feet if approved by the Director or ARC. Project plans show that the new structure would be 25'-7' high from average finished grade. Staff recommends that the building height be revised to comply with the 25-foot height requirement from existing grade. 4. Other Yard Building Height Exception(Side Yard) With the exception of the southerly side yard, the project complies with all yard requirements. The applicant is asking the ARC to grant a side yard exception to allow a 3-foot yard where a 9- foot wide yard is required. According the GAD, the reduced side yard would allow the owners to 0 41_W ARC 120-01 (Harris Res :.e) ~ , Attachment 6 Page 4 _.. gain useful rear yard area (loss with the 35+/- open space easement) and provide the required driveway backup space. Although the applicant's representative makes a valid argument, there is concern over whether a 3-foot side yard is appropriate for a two-story structure with a roof deck. The Code section cited by the applicants' representative (Section 17.16.020dii) only allows an exception for a 3-foot yard for detached single-story accessory structure. Section 17.16.020e of the Zoning Regulations (Other Yard Building Height Exception) addresses this particular situation. This Code section allows the Director or ARC to approve a reduced side yard, but in no case less than 5 feet. The only other way to grant a 3-foot side yard would be through the variance process. Based on these reasons, staff believes that a 5-foot side yard would be more appropriate for the proposed design. In order for the ARC to approve the requested setback exception, any one of the following and similar circumstances must apply to the project: 1. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; 2. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of the total available solar exposure; 3. When the properties at issue are within an area where use of solar energy is generally infeasible because of landform shading; 4. When adequate recorded agreement running with the land exists to protect established solar collectors and probable collector locations. 5. When the property to be shaded is a street; 6. Where no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely from the exception. Staff believes that findings 1, 2, 3 and 6 can be made in support of the side yard setback exception. The project will not deprive any other property of reasonable solar access. The structure will shade the interior of the site given the property's solar orientation and the proposed building layout. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to occur from the addition. The project will not alter the character of the neighborhood because there are other properties in the immediate area with similar width side yards. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard because it is not need for pedestrian access or maintenance purposes. 2/1 Attachment 6 ARC 120-01 (Harris Res(. Page 5 5. Conversion of Temporary Residence The project involves the construction of a temporary family residence with the future remodel of an existing house on the property. If the existing residence and new temporary residence were allowed to remain, the site would exceed the R-1 density requirements. According to the applicant's representative, Garcia Architecture and Design (GAD), the applicants are willing to sign an agreement that would require conversion of the temporary residence to an artist studio/office upon completion of the primary residence. In this case, the kitchen,sink and other amenities would have to be removed from the temporary residence. Although the City does not get many requests for a temporary residence over a detached garage, it is a common City practice to require an applicant to sign a document agreeing to maintain a primary residence and accessory structure as one dwelling unit. Staff is recommending three conditions to assure that there are not two dwellings on the site. The first condition requires that the primary residence use be discontinued before occupancy is granted for the temporary residence. The second condition requires that the temporary residence use be discontinued before occupancy is granted for the remodeled primary residence. Discontinued use would mean removal of any kitchen sink, cooking appliance, refrigerator as well as the reconfiguration of rooms deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. The third condition requires the applicant execute a Conditions of Use Agreement that would run with the property and inform any future owners of this restriction. 6. Tree Preservation The initial environmental study prepared for minor subdivision, MS 34-7, included a mitigation measure requiring all significant trees be retained. Project plans show a majority of the existing mature trees within the open space easement and note that they will be protected during all phases of construction. Plans show two existing trees being removed to accommodate the proposed driveway. Both of these trees are close to an existing utility pole and appear to have been damaged. The City Arborist has not provided comments on whether one or both of these trees should be removed. The ARC should discuss if the design complies with this mitigation measure. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Project plans were presented to other City departments for their comments. The Community Development Department-Building Division provided comments on site grading, building code compliance and driveways standards. The Fire and Utilities Departments did not have any concerns as the necessary public improvements exist at the property. Each department will review the project for compliance with the applicable conditions as part of the final building permit processes. ,41-o73 ARC 120-01 (Harris Res' :e) Attachment 6 Page 6 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant and staff regarding the desired information or needed revisions to the plans. 2. Deny the project. ARC should specific findings of denial. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project and reduced side yard from 9 feet to 5 feet, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: General Findings 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions and modifications, complies with property development standards for the R-1 zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of the building will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. I The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the persons living or working in the vicinity because it is a small residential project that has been designed in a way that minimizes any impacts to adjacent land uses. Side Yard Exceplion Findings 4. The affected properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. Due to site orientation and building size, the addition will shade the interior of the lot and not adjoining properties. 5. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard because it is not need for pedestrian access or maintenance purposes. 6. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety of general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to occur from the addition. 7. The project will not alter the character of the neighborhood because there are other properties in the immediate area with similar width side yards. �-�?y ARC 120-01 (Harris Res ,,Ce) � Attachment 6 Page 7 Conditions 1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC and all conditions of approval. Any questions of substantial compliance shall be referred to the Community Development Director and, if need be, to the ARC for resolution. 2. This project approval is for the detached garage with temporary residence above. Remodel of the primary residence will also require architectural review per MS 34-97. 3. All applicable conditions of approvals of the Director's approval of the tentative parcel map for MS 34-97 shall remain in effect, those conditions are incorporated herein reference (see Attachment 7). Site and street frontage improvements shall be installed with construction of the detached garage with temporary residence. 4. The site plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of 5 feet between the detached garage and the southerly property line. 5. The site plan shall be revised to include a "Hollywood" driveway or similar style of driveway on the north side of the existing residence. 6. The applicant shall revise building height comply with the R-i zone standard of 25 feet from existing grade. 7. Rigid style fencing shall be used to protect the existing trees during all phases of construction. The City Arborist shall approve the style and location of all protective fencing. 8. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan showing the location, species and sizes of all trees on the site. The City Arborist shall approve all tree removals. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, on a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director (Conditions of Use Agreement to insure that the temporary residence be converted into an artist studio/office and the converted accessory structure and remodeled primary residence will function as one dwelling unit. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of the use and restrictions affecting the property. 10. Prior to occupancy of the temporary residence, the applicant shall discontinue use of the primary residence by removing the kitchen sink, cooking appliances and refrigerator.. 11. Prior to occupancy of the remodeled primary residence, the applicant shall discontinue use of the temporary residence by converting it into an artist studio/office. This may require 7 4-as ARC 120-01 (Harris Res tce) Attachment 6 Page 8 removing the kitchen sink; cooking appliances, refrigerator and any walls deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. CODE REQUIREMENTS The code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional unit. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. 2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 3. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 4. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The project shall comply with all applicable local and State Fire Codes. Attachments: Attachment 1-Vicinity Map Attachment 2-Tenative Parcel Map MS 34-97 (SL-94-119) Attachment 3-Lot Line Adjustment Map with Open Space Easement (LLA183-99) Attachment 4-Applicant's Description/Statement and Design Overview Attachment 5-Site Plan Attachment 6-Building Elevations Attachment 7-Director's Action on MS 34-97 Attachment 8-Letter from Devin Gallagher dated November 12, 2001 Full-size plans were distributed to the ARC and are available for review at the Community Development Department. 1Shoals/ARC/120-01(Harris) y �� Attachment 7 Reason for Appeal continued Tho (^(Ll�n�71h C3E 6A /l1(v)"SI5&gZ: WILL 64... Pht'4ZF AFI �� STdilUk�l�S �h�� 'dQc C. 41-14 «ns;L) cZ,,�f L24;�)� 71' X17 -s r' / Sly ldZi 1 &) r (Q= ro54jL126)s K (e)>ZALIM) 4 12Z 7-oc14r1'V4aQ Sof- AMc+c:� <�TiIJ SECflON4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY he: an Ltus`Ob'ispot✓ity Council4alues� ublic:pa'didpation,in local government and encourages all forms of-6itizen=involvement. The.City; finlike most in California,does not charge.a fee for filing an:appeal.`However, placing an.appeal,before the City Council requires considerable work and cost, including agenda report preparation and public,notification. Therefore, your right to exercise an appeal comes with"certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal,please understand that it must be heard within-45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be scheduled to be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make.your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance maybe granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be:able-to-grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted, that action is at the discretion of the City Council. l hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. 04' "t� J-� c; / (Signature of pe t (Date) This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head ity lerl$(origi Page 2 of 3 10101 Attachment 7 Premise for Appeal to City Council from ARC 120-01 (Harris Residence) This is an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's Decision for an exception to the height vs. setback standards of the City of San Luis Obispo. A detailed letter describing the requirements for both subdivision of the parcel and care for the natural resources of the site for the last 10 years, was presented to the ARC. We will refer to that letter in your packet but not restate the contents here. We request that the Council read the letter of 12 November 2001. Please understand that we, the Appellants of the ARC decision, fully expect a residence to be built on the site at 2713 Meadow Street. This is a planning issue and we feel that the ARC did not address the planning, engineering, hydrological and biological concerns over the sensitive resources of the site. The solution the ARC chose (on a 4-2 vote) was to create an architectural compromise but did not.address the planning concerns we had identified. We feel the City Council will take the time to address the specific planning issues and address a holistic approach to development in a sensitive area. 1) The proposed structure is inconsistent with City planning and development standards for. a. height vs. setback; b. proposed movable skylight structure that may constitute a portion of the structure and require egress, handrails, structures and skyways; C. determination of sensitive site. We are appealing the General Findings 1, 7 and Conditions 4 and 6. The standard lot does not restrict the development of the residence. However, we object to the finding that the garage building for that residence be in the proposed location. 2) Placement of a garage/residence within a watercourse is inappropriate. 3) The proposed garagelresidence creates oversight conflicts for the proposed use of the adjacent property. Future potential for development of the adjacent property may create substantive oversight issues. (We will remove our objection to this oversight issue if the city can show three situations where this has been approved in the City in a manner consistent with building codes.) 4) Quality alternatives do exist: a. Placing a structure off a common driveway with new construction at adjacent 2707 Meadow Street; b. Recessing the structure; C. Creating a street facing garage as anticipated by City engineering who required the creation of a 16 foot radius driveway apron for residence. 5) The proposed garage/residence is nconsistent with the staff report of the Minor subdivision report 18 November 1997. Page 3, Item 3. Development will require care. Attachment 7 Page 3 Item 4: Major trees are to be saved. Both parcels are determined to be significant sites due to the tree canopy. A negative declaration was created for the subdivision not for this proposed garage/residence. 6) Additional Concerns: Creation of a secondary dwelling in an R1 neighborhood, It is unclear if the stairwell to the third floor deck of the residence over the garage is in conformance with height standards. Please clarify this issue. There are significant trees and vegetation not presented on the applicants map: 1 live 14" coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia and 1 live 36"valley oak Quercus lobata. The applicants claim that the 14"diameter oak was dead is incorrect. The Quercus agrifolia is very much alive and if removed should be mitigated appropriately. Thank you for your time. �-a 9 Attachment 8 NOV ' 3 2001 November 12,2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT John P. Shoals Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 2713 Meadow Street Dear Mr. Shoals: As the former property owners of 2713 Meadow Street and present owners of the adjacent site, we recognize that the existing residence should be redeveloped. We have worked diligently during the past ten years with City Staff to develop the properties in conformance with current development and subdivision standards while maintaining the natural features that make this block unique. The minor subdivision and subsequent lot line adjustment were undertaken for the express purpose of creating conforming and conventional city lots. No additional exceptions for this property were ever proposed, expected or anticipated by City Staff or the owner. Had there been additional exceptions to planning codes it is unlikely that the planning approvals would have proceeded. During the process,building footprints were defined for the vacant lot.However,the footprint of the existing residence was already established and anticipated to remain as is.That the residence clearly needs renewal was a given, but the establishment of a second building was never considered as appropriate. We feel that approval of any exception to height vs. setback at this juncture and the creation of a second building envelop would be inappropriate and in conflict with the City's analysis of the last ten years.The application as presented is (1) inappropriate and (2) irresponsibly sited and we wish to convey our concerns (opposition). 1. The applicants' proposal for an exception to height vs. setback as submitted is flawed and inappropriate: A. The existing topographic lines appear to differ from the original survey in the area of the proposed structure. No survey was referenced on the submittal but it appears that the topography is identical to the original topographic survey done by Tom Mastin Surveys. The original topographic survey has been the basis of the many planning and development actions completed to date. B. Two significant trees appear to have been left off the site map; the 34"triple trunk Valley Oak Quercus lobata within the city right of way at the end of the cul de sac and a 14" live Oak Quercus agrafolia in the rear yard adjacent to the power pole. These trees have grown significantly from the survey that was completed 10 years ago and should be checked by the arborist. The 14"Live Oak, power pole and power lines are proposed for removal. C. When an exception to height vs. setback is requested the maximum height of the structure should be based on the average elevation under the proposed structure at the correct setback not the average elevation under the proposed structure elevation at the 3' setback. D. 'lhe maximum height of the proposed structure is shown to the top of the roof deck railing but does not include the roof structure over the stairway and widows nest at the center of the roof deck that is approximately 7 feet higher. As designed, the applicant should be requesting �/ -3a - �-Attachmei4t 8 an exception to maximum building height to 32 feet and the requested height vs. setback exception should likely be changed to 3 feet where 13.5 feet would be allowed. E. Perhaps the applicant should consider locating the proposed structure adjacent to common property line with the architect/friend/neighbor. Given that the applicant intends to remove the utility pole and to place the utility lines underground this might better serve both parties as they could share the cost and jointly construct a common driveway thereby reducing the lot coverage. The Garcia Residence footprint is defined and an appropriate setback and easements could be established This siting would have the added benefit of allowing the proposed garage and structure to be attached and accessible to the existing residence. 2. The proposed location for the new structure is irresponsibly sited: A. The attraction to this neighborhood and the value in the land.is a function of the healthy native tree canopy. These native trees both young and old exist on the water seeps that the proposed structure intends to reengineer. Should you have the opportunity to view this neighborhood from afar it is distinctive because of the towering pocket of trees that extend down towards Meadow Park. It is common for people to be attracted to a neighborhood/property because of the floralfauna and then they take actions that destroy it. This classic situation is often repeated. B. The many mature trees on the adjacent parcel and within the adjacent city open spaces will be disrupted no matter what development takes place but the underground springs and seeps are critical to their survival. The proposed building area is typically wet most of the year as evidenced by the permanently green grass in the area of the proposed structure. C. New water runoff created by the proposed structure must be conveyed to Meadow Street. The additional soil necessary to raise the structure sufficient to allow the runoff to drain properly will result in substantial compaction of the root zones of the existing trees. Their demise will likely follow in short order. D. It defies common sense to locate a structure adjacent to and/or on top of existing springs/seeps. Engineering can accommodate underground water sources but should those engineered systems fail over time one is likely to have creating long term problems. Case in point is the twenty year old residence three houses to the north under which the foundation has failed. The neighborhood has moved approximately one-foot northeast since the street was originally established and can be evidenced by the jog in the Meadow Street alignment. Ir maybe helpful to give you a short chronology of the recent events surrounding the development of 2700 block of Meadow St: On October 4, 1991, Tom Mastin completed a field topographic survey for the adjacent properties of Takken and Gallagher. 1994, Takken completed SLO AL 92-003; lot line adjustment of three parcels including the abandonment of Parque Vista Street (the extension of Mitchell Street) and dedication of the permanent open space. March, 1997, the Director granted an exception to the slope density requirement allowing two single-family residences on the existing parcel. During the design process it has become increasingly apparent that the prevailing character of the neighborhood is that of single family homes.The highest and best use of the property would be two separately owned single family residences rather than two rental properties on the same parcel. _ /� - Attachment 8 In 1999,Gallagher completed SLO 94-119 creating two parcels from one. 2713 Meadow Street was created as a conforming R-1 lot 63.56 feet wide,6195 square feet with a cross slope of 5%. Engineering required the completion of street improvements including the termination of Meadow Street as a shortened cul-de-sac to accommodate the existing 34"valley oak. May 2000, VanNess and Gallagher Completed LLA 183-99 adding 3 feet to the frontage of the VanNess property and adding the deeded open space the rear of the two Gallagher parcels. The intent was to make the VanNess property more nearly conforming while maintaining 2713 Meadow (increased to 7960 square feet) as `conventional' parcel should it be remodeled or redeveloped. Exhibit F is attached August 2000, Garcia buys 2707 Meadow from VanNess. January 2001,Harris buys 2713 Meadow from Gallagher. We are frustrated to have to defend the neighborhood vision created through ten years of development process in light of the obviously inappropriate exceptions granted the Garcia residence.The natural flora and topography are 1h.Q significant asset of this neighborhood. Our first priority should be to maintain the elements that allow the flora to exist and in so doing allow this unique pocket to add character to our community. Thank you for carefully considering our comments and suggestions as well as those of the City Staff and the many reviews to date. Sincerely Yours, vin and Charmaine Marie Gallagher cc: Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director-Development Review enclosure: Exhibit F _/L 7 Attachment 9 firma 22 August 2001 Mr. Mike Harris 2713 Meadow Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 RE:Harris Residence Dear Mr. Harris, Upon visiting your property on November 28, 2001 and examining the existing Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia) located along the northern property line, I have determined it hazardous and in need of being removed. Upon examination of the Coast Live Oak, I found several lengths of wire wrapped around the Mink of the tree about 18" from the ground. This wire has had a girdling effect on the tree, inhibiting its uptake of water and nutrients, for what appears to be several years based upon how the tree has grown around them. In addition to this the tree has chosen an unfortunate location to grow out of being that it is growing from the bottom of an existing telephone pole, this has greatly decreased its potential growth and form. Due to these factors the tree is now in an advanced state of decomposition and should be considered a hazard to be removed. Sincerely, Rebecca Verner Consulting Arborist, ISA #5613 ca George Garcia, Garcia Architecture& Design 1880 Santa Barbara St. # "C", San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Principal.-David W. Foote ASLA.-AEP Regisita oon No.2117 849 Monfeivy Street Suite. 205 San Lui-,;Obispo, CA 93-10 Attachment 10 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND APPROVING A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH TEMPORARY DWELLING ON A SENSITIVE SITE WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, 2713 MEADOW STREET, ARC 120-01. WHEREAS, on December 3, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing and approved project ARC 120-01 based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Devin and Charmaine Gallagher filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on December 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2002, and has considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission actions, the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions and modifications, complies with property development standards for the R-1 zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of the building will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3. The proposed project will not'adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the persons living or working in the vicinity because it is a small residential project that has been '1 3 / i Resolution No. (2002 Series) ARC 120-01, 2713 Meadow Street Page 2 designed in a way that minimizes any impacts to adjacent land uses. 4. The proposed building (detached garage with temporary residence) is located outside of the existing open space easement and preserves the significant trees on the site. Side Yard Exception Findings 5. The affected properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. Due to site orientation and building size, the addition will shade the interior of the lot and not adjoining properties. 6. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard because it is not needed for pedestrian access or maintenance purposes. 7. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to occur from the addition. 8. The project will not alter the character of the neighborhood because there are other properties in the immediate area with similar width side yards. SECTION 2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action conditionally approving the project is hereby denied, and that action is upheld subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC and all conditions of approval. Any questions of substantial compliance shall be referred to the Community Development Director and, if need be, to the ARC for resolution. 2. This project approval is for the detached garage with temporary residence above. Remodel of the primary residence will also require architectural review per MS 34-97. 3. All applicable conditions of approvals of the Director's approval of the tentative parcel map for MS 34-97 shall remain in effect, those conditions are incorporated herein reference. Site and street frontage improvements shall be installed with construction of the detached garage with temporary residence. 4. The site plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of 5 feet between the detached garage and the southerly property line. �3� Resolution No. (2002 Series) / ARC 120-01,2713 Meadow Street Page 3 5. The site plan shall be revised to include a "Hollywood" driveway or similar style of driveway on the north side of the existing residence. 6. The applicant shall revise building height to comply with the R-1 zone standard of 25 feet from average existing grade. 7. Rigid style fencing shall be used to protect the existing trees during all phases of construction. The City Arborist shall approve the style and location of all protective fencing. 8. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan showing the location, species and sizes of all trees on the site. The City Arborist shall approve all tree removals. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, on a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director (Conditions of Use Agreement to insure that the temporary residence be converted into an artist studio/office and the converted accessory structure and remodeled primary residence will function as one dwelling unit. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of the use and restrictions affecting the property. 10. Prior to occupancy of the temporary residence, the applicant shall discontinue use of the primary residence by removing the kitchen sink, cooking appliances, refrigerator and the heating system. 11. Prior to occupancy of the remodeled primary residence, the applicant shall discontinue use of the temporary residence by converting it into an artist studio/office. This may require removing the kitchen sink and associated plumbing, cooking appliances, refrigerator and any xalts deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 12. To minimize potential privacy impacts, the roof design shall be modified so that the southerly four feet of the roof area cannot be used as a deck. Code Requirements The code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional unit. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. 2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. ,4/-3b Resolution No. (2002 Series) ARC 120-01, 2713 Meadow Street Page 4 3. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 4. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The project shall comply with all applicable local and State Fire Codes. 6. The width of the existing driveway ramp shall be reduced to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. 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 , 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: dfih- ity orn tey Jorgensen 37 Attachment 11 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING THE APPROVAL OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH TEMPORARY DWELLING ON A SENSITIVE SITE WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, 2713 MEADOW STREET, ARC 120-01. WHEREAS, on December 3, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing and approved project ARC 120-01 based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Devin and Charmaine Gallagher filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on December 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2002, and has considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission actions, the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project does not comply with property development standards for the R-1 zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of the building will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses and will not be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The proposed project may adversely affect the sensitive site or damage natural resources. SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is hereby upheld and the project design denied. �-3� Resolution No. (2002 Series) ARC 120-01, 2713 Meadow Street 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 2001. Mayor Allen Settle . ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: torn yr G. Jorgensen ��9 _3ECEIVED r ate Received 2001 c1ty Of UQ CITY CLERK oft2osan lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION SCO. Name Mailing Address and 2ip Code Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: a"� 3. The application or project was entitled: 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: on Ak (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 f Reason for Appeal continued Thy &A=ihp-, nt ,fin excopa= b 6410 ✓s r er,i� is 71 of ::Z17 --S C-/r�.sllcl 6 J X ) 4 62Z 1U:4f-6V/lin Qii s7 5EF AalnC SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. The City, unlike most in California, does not charge a fee for filing an appeal. However, placing an appeal before the City Council requires considerable work and cost, including agenda report preparation and public notification. Therefore, your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be scheduled to be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. (Signature of ppe t (Date) This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head ity erlf(origi Page 2 of 3 ioroi Premise for Appeal to City Council from ARC 120-01 (Harris Residence) This is an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's Decision for an exception to the height vs. setback standards of the City of San Luis Obispo. A detailed letter describing the requirements for both subdivision of the parcel and care for the natural resources of the site for the last 10 years,was presented to the ARC.We will refer to that letter in your packet but not restate the contents here.We request that the Council read the letter of 12 November 2001. Please understand that we, the Appellants of the ARC decision,fully expect a residence to be built on the site at 2713 Meadow Street.This is a planning issue and we feel that the ARC did not address the planning, engineering, hydrological and biological concerns over the sensitive resources of the site. The solution the ARC chose (on a 4-2 vote) was to create an architectural compromise but.did not address the planning concerns we had identified.We feel the City Council will take the time to address the specific planning issues and address a.holistic approach to development in a sensitive area. 1) The proposed structure is inconsistent with City planning and development standards for: a. height vs. setback; b. proposed movable skylight structure that may constitute a portion of the structure and require egress,handrails, structures and skyways; C. determination of sensitive site. We are appealing the General Findings 1,7 and Conditions 4 and 6. The standard lot does not restrict the development of the residence. However,we object to the finding that the garage building for that residence be in the proposed location. 2) Placement of a garage/residence within a watercourse is inappropriate. 3) The proposed garage/residence creates oversight conflicts for the proposed use of the adjacent property.Future potential for development of the adjacent property may create substantive oversight issues. (We will remove our objection to this oversight issue if the city can show three situations where this has been approved in the City in a manner consistent with building codes.) 4) Quality alternatives do exist: a. Placing a structure off a common driveway with new construction at adjacent 2707 Meadow Street; b. Recessing the structure; C. Creating a street facing garage as anticipated by City engineering who required the creation of a 16 foot radius driveway apron for residence. 5) The proposed garage/residence is nconsistent with the staff report of the Minor subdivision report 18 November 1997. Page 3, Item 3.Development will require care. Page 3 Item 4: Major trees are to be saved. Both parcels are determined to be significant sites due to the tree canopy. A negative declaration was created for the subdivision not for this proposed garage/residence. 6) Additional Concerns: Creation of a secondary dwelling in an R1 neighborhood, It is unclear if the stairwell to the third floor deck of the residence over the garage is in conformance with height standards. Please clarify this issue. There are significant trees and vegetation not presented on the applicants map: 1 live 14"coast live oak,Quercus agrifolia and 1 live 36"valley oak Quercus lobata. The applicants claim that the 14"diameter oak was dead is incorrect. The Quercus agrifolia is very much alive and if removed should be mitigated appropriately. Thank you for your time.