HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2003, PH1 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO A HISTORIC council
aGenaa Repoin t'WN 41
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci;Associate Planner PK
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC)
APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO A HISTORIC HOUSE (ARC MI 52-03;
1535 NIPOMO).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission's action to approve the project, based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The owners of 1535 Nipomo Street, Mark and Susan Coward, would like to add on to the main
house located on the site. The existing building footprint will remain essentially the same, but
there will be a small addition at the rear of the.ground floor to expand the kitchen. The main
addition will occur with a 620 square-foot new second floor. Full size copies of project plans are
available for review in the Community Development Department and will be distributed to
Council members.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the project on May 27, 2003 because it
involves changes to a property located on the Contributing List of Historic Structures in a
Historical Preservation Overlay Zone. The CHC unanimously supported the project, finding that
the proposed additions were architecturally compatible with the historic house and consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (the CHC update is
included in Attachment 6 as an attachment to the 6-16-03 ARC report). Typically an addition to a
single-family house in a historic district that is supported by the CHC would be handled as a minor
or incidental architectural review application administratively. However, the CHC specifically
referred the project to the ARC because of input received at the meeting from three neighbors to
allow for further discussion of their issues.
The ARC unanimously approved the project on June 16, 2003 (Attachments 4 & 5). The ARC
praised the applicants on their sensitive design, which added floor space to a historic structure
without significantly affecting its roof form or substantially adding to the building footprint. An
adjacent neighbor, Patricia Griffin (574 Islay Street), and her temporary housemate, Larry
Casalegno, filed appeals of the ARC's decision on June 26, 2003 (Attachments 2 & 3). Appeals
of the ARC's actions are considered by the City Council. In summary, the appeal statements
bring up the following concerns:
• The additions are not in keeping with the period architecture;
• The additions will block views and create privacy issues;
Council Agenda Reportppeal of ARC's action on Coward Pi,_kt(ARC MI 52-03)
Page 2
• Questions about property line locations and proposed setbacks;
• Issues related to use of an access easement for the applicants that extends from Islay
Street across the rear of the property where the-appellants reside.
ARC's Action
On June 16, 2003, the ARC reviewed the project. The appellants have indicated that they were
present,but neither one spoke at the hearing. The appellants had raised concerns with the project
and articulated them at the earlier CHC meeting. However, these concerns, which are
summarized in the attached ARC report, did not relate to building form or appearance. Issues
with the authenticity of the design and scale of the additions surfaced in the official appeal
statements prepared by the appellants, which were received on June 260'
.
The ARC briefly questioned staff about the requested side yard setback exception. The
exception is needed for the proposed gable-end dormer on the north elevation. The full height of
the dormer would require a 10-foot setback. The existing house along the north property line has
a 4-foot setback. The dormer is stepped back another four feet resulting in an 8-foot setback.
Therefore, the exception is to allow the 8-foot setback where a 10-foot setback is required.
Findings approved by the ARC for the exception cite the existing nonconforming side yard and
the minor nature of the exception request (only the upper triangular portion of the dormer
Actually creates the need for the exception) as reasons to support it.
Response to Anneal Issues
Authenticity of Design — A particularly attractive component of the proposed design is that it
allows the applicants to create additional floor space without making significant changes to the
roof form or building footprint. The existing steeply sloping form of the Dutch hip roof contains
the volume to naturally accommodate a second level. The proposed dormers provide the needed
light and ventilation to the upperfloor space and are in keeping with the architectural style of the
house that has both hip and gable forms. The CHC and ARC with their backing of the project
specifically included a finding that the roof form and slope facing the street would be preserved
with the additions.
The appellants' statements do not provide a specific reason why the additions are not consistent
with the architectural style of the house or compromise its historical character. The CHC is the
designated advisory body to review the project for its consistency with the City's and federal
guidelines for changes to a contributing, historical resource. The ARC considers the
recommendation of the CHC in making a decision on the appropriateness of the project in terms
of its historical context and appearance. The project architect, a former member of the ARC, has
worked on many similar projects in the past involving historic resources.
View Blockage & Privacy — Except for the small portion of the upper gable of the northern
dormer, all of the proposed additions conform to all applicable property development standards.
The attached ARC staff report (Attachment 6) mentions that the new dormers add to the existing
roof volume, but much less significantly than other second story additions would. For this
reason and given that the house is well under allowed height limitations for the zone (24 feet
where a 35 foot structure is allowed), the dormers will not significantly compromise views of the
�-a
Council Agenda Report-ppeal of ARC's action on Coward Pi_,ect(ARC MI 52-03)
Page 3
surrounding area.
Another concern of the appellant Patricia Griffin is that the dormer additions will create a
"lookout tower" that will affect her privacy in her yard. She has provided an exhibit showing
generalized locations of buildings, which she admitted to staff, was not to scale or accurately
plotted. On this exhibit she has added arrows depicting views out from the new dormer
windows. The location of the dormer on the south elevation is not oriented in the direction of the
yard space. The dormer on the rear elevation is directly in the center of the building and oriented
to the rear of the site. Someone standing at this window could potentially see into adjacent rear
yards. However, since the rear dormer is completely consistent with height and setback
standards and is a substantial distance from the appellants' yard area, there does not seem to be a
rationale to require a change to the design.
Property Line Questions — From their written statements, staff has not been able to ascertain
the specific concern of the appellants with the submitted plans and the information that they
contain on property line locations. The applicants had a survey done and submitted working
drawings for the project are consistent with this record information.
Easement Issues — The applicants have a recorded 10-foot wide easement at the rear of the
adjacent property to the southeast that allows them access to their property from Islay Street.
The appellants live in a small structure located on this adjacent property. Many of the concerns
that have been raised at the CHC meeting and in written statements seem to stem from the
applicants' use of the easement.
Staff is not.aware of any violation of City ordinances by the applicants in terms of their use of
the easement area. On-going disputes between the neighbors with the use of this area are a civil
matter. The actual property owner of the adjacent property (574, 576 & 580 Islay, as well as
1541 Nipomo) has contacted staff by phone and e-mail to indicate that he has reviewed project
plans and is in support of the planned additions.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal, and denying the project,based on findings.
2. Continue with direction to thestaff and appellant.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Patricia Griffin Appeal to City Council received 6-26-03
Attachment 3: Larry Casalegno Appeal to City Council received 6-26-03
Attachment 4: 6-16-03 ARC follow-up letter
Attachment 5: Draft 6-16-03 ARC minutes
Attachment 6: 6-16-03 ARC report and attachments
Attachment 7: Draft Resolutions
arc\10-00-2(Coward appeal).doc
c-3
-H
Attachment 1
PF-H
-H
�9G R-2-
R-3-H
P
R-2- �� R-2-H
-2- y�
A
0
R-2-H
R-2 >"
S^..
R-2-H
�cs R-
R-2-H
R-2
R-2
-2
-2
R-2
R-2-PD
VICINITY MAP ARCMI 52-03
N
1535 Nipomo
A
H-
1
�— Attachment 2
D
RECEIVED
'
city 0r JUN 2 b 2003
w US OBISp0 g�,0 CITY c��K
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANTINFORMAWN
pwyl" Awn 574 Z�Jaa
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
&ns-s42 - os os gem -54 2 - o.So3s
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTIONZ SUBJECTOFAPPEAL
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:
�J
Z - 03 yi'c, AddNm aN III.
(Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision--being appeal � Zyd �1
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: I(o _ 2.Dn-5 J
3. The application or project was entitled: 153 S Wpomn. c Uw
i fi' ri 41 c, WOMC. Nair.. ' �
4. I discussed the Mauer with(/}"h'e following City staff member Ral
k�t5
t. &2
(S(atf M"es(Name and p (Date) 2�
9 ca_
27
SECTION 3 REASON FOR L ChrZ SP..r� 6—2.3 2Q 2S
Explain specifically whatactionts you are appealing and-why you believe the Council should oonsider'your'
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach ad:ffdb 1 pages,if
necessary. This f im wrifinues on&ke othersi&
rte iice. ,41 i% 6M 2A
Ricc,' C IPlavtr��'�q� 5-216
J G- 15� I bI 1"� 24) 2S, 26
� -S
Attachment 2
Reason for Appeal continued
Ate , as sWOMilkad MibuSlu to chc,
Coco StDVa
w n
S'�r l.QOrWWCKOS al %a1 + "
3t�o� vi SLC) in CL b! st'
Sion, koaus . We s 41.-Q_ view ow►d f?rOu tt.44 Q� Wj As A
�� v oijkwr
;;�ndN4 APRT .!" P�.?11S1BILIJY 1 �OtD QC
t{il{r t i. p:+ �41y1, ` �,{r '�'.fi M 4J LI•� ,: .'. 4 'r'S,' . :. K ,ri i II T.r.� V
r , Ye @iti�1�1 1p tanpil values publ�lrp y.. I tlQp in:local governMo arld
s taorrra W etllIratm f dtt`1rf•541vgq OhL The Citys u"i�' 1n California,doe trot
c ltgeaForffdit9' � bwrartsr,pladng:a1ap�pe the city Cpu iquikes
CbrtSiderable work afar!ppst�fnottlIng Benda reportpreparat�pfl end public notrficatEQn
efote;yourcEgltai�erciae3f,�ppeal Wmes.with cert�,feisponsibiUtles Ifyou fileata
p` edl, pTeaAndeiarftt thet1t be heard within 45 cjts#rem tiling this form 'ecu vll;ps .
ifled�n vimting.of '$,Qxat,dt yqurlapReal will bhedla�
e scd to be heard before the
',a 'ain iL f ou or yo II�i�Yva d tl�Ql Tfl, ex ectedlto efts,die public hearing'.and to 4e•
;p $ptired to mbke`t�Aul' fl m"�Yr to mbny is liml#�d toy 1Mil�utes
r
r
X.ccntint{atsay ,gCrited ender certain end tuyal cflicumstances, ff +cu u
,n0. t0. eques4$c�pnt n�ience,i u must submd yourTQgr Qst ftY itvritting to the City Glerl�. '#wase be
O.Vi e-.ha if.yQ<Irkr i t for b;d�hu669 it received aftbl"y�}tl^appsal Is noticed to theoUliIRx�e
?isrwnognMfn�r�� � iCeo1i a rauast far gbrltl�uaheA trbmitting a l.cf' 04t4111ruoe
1u s�rrotgu �a�� Oki,
�1rarifaal,that eotl*0*a a dfsrrreNon of the CT�y Quh
Cyt }.� I 1'KV rl•u.w IS 4.�'"(' 4, _ •i f`` - i 'v4'
! tet�v��yt fb $ ertt r�areprf�seni#a"r1veto.appearstnptyeel t liRn
saliYappt fs�;s 9�lple�fore uvllc ` ritr prii►drailiaCit Councli.
a•Inlr41-',_ '„d ti..r, �°."�fa�'u- - n lbi 'f rr � .. , _ � ..
' } , " I ,, I' y,tf 1
P44
r {
Y r ,�li
t
e
This Item is hereby calendered for I
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
`CP
��.. _J
Attachment 2
Fax To: City Planning
Patricia A.Griffin
Ph/Fax:542-0505
574 Islay Street
San Luis 06ispo,California 95+o i
Please record this written appeal to the City Council of San Luis Qbispo,dated,June 24,requesting
additional review,or rejection of Application: ARCMI 52-05. The Cultural heritage Committee
agreed to address concerns brought up 6y neig6bours attending the May 27 meeting. At the ARC
meeting,held on,June 16,only one of a myriad a issues was made an agenda item,and all comments from
attendees were limited to that particular topic,which granted an E-xception to zoning restrictions
regulating new construction setback limitations. Since follow-up calls to the recommended city planning
offices(both priorto and since the May 27'6 and June 16i1'committee meetings)suggested we attend
the meetings and make our comments public(to no avaiD, we Just received a call directing us to appeal in
writing. 50,pendingdiscovery pertainingto abuse of easement privlegcs,misleading statements
regarding the impact of the construction on the homes on both sides of the construction zone, and an on-
going dispute regarding interpretation of Property lines,I request that the permit 6e set aside. jam
sincerely hopeful that the Coward famly, of whom I am fond,are able,tbrougb remodelling, to eventually
make their Historic home the place they wished it had been when they purchased it I cannot,however,
allow this series of public hearings to continue to'6ear but not listen'(nor investigate)valid and legally-
6inding correction statements made by attendees. The Recorder's(D fico should be requested to
provide accurate property line assessments and casement use agreements,if in existence.And,if not
legally binding,these should be clarified before any additional easement rights or setback exceptions are
granted. In 1994, when I resided on Islay and, then on this block of I)uc6on,I feel these particular
blocks within our community to 6e very special places in ourtown,quintessentially San Luis 06ispo.
Having made my home here and having business property downtown for almost I O years,I do not agree
that my sensitivities should be discarded because I happen to be"a tenant (a status which was openly
insulted in the un-monitored Cultural heritage Committee Meeting of May 27,as being disallowed from
community hearings). I happen to be quite happy renting my little historic cottage on Islay and I will
excuse that as an inconsistency,however,do urge the City Council to receive my appeal that this
proposed construction 6c re-considered.
PJ Photo exhibits were provided to the.Cultural Heritage Committee,and the points made by
neighbours attending have been submitted item 69 item for review by therespective governingbodies.
1 ��
Attachment 2
p►dperty
r lardy Home Property LInd4
Coward
Pat"
i
Way Haas i
i
tbubleCar i
i
Garal7e i
tumetetel �
i
i
i
tW0Ild" i
(Cb=tow Curtmt i
Parise i
IG
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
678 hNay i
i
Geo belay (Gree,9xt) I
(Cboa 7806) i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Comer Horne i
i
Hlpom straSt i Coward Hones
i
:7
i
i
Nlpomo Wreat
Adlbk
Attachment 2
7,55-
N I po rAO NIPorAO
tl9
I i
Attachment 2
Prop"
[stay Noun
�•/• cowarn I
•l i
1
(aley Homo 1
Dolthle4ar i
1
fie" i
(am ism
I
1
680 blsy
C" 1
(G'ICO 1936) I
Feil I
1
I
1
1
I
670 Islay
i
so Islay (Circa 1622)
(Ch=1908) 1
I
I
1
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
Corrm House
I
Hiponn
Strad i Coward House
i
i
i
Hfpomo sheet
HD
Attachment 2
3 - 6t '
00.
rhIS MAP IS PREPAREC FCW r
ZMSSMEN' PURMSFS ONLY
�5�.553 S T.
� Y8'f 493. 573 y�-q sit
'CO So 150 100 50 23 127 60
, O
z r.
O • � e q o
(n a ! O n 2 O l a 43
.o
FR.a (f6) 5 * V1
• 1 7
11-02�12
s
6 _
150
f5 V
n 8 !6 a. O 4 O ?to . 22
co
L I
10010Y 49 µ''E taw;wl• ..[ AN WT.~ SO 1 ~
f3fr B t3o S3(e 538 Sio ao sTI� �L
U- SSL sse 4
To
SS•S 54f 6 M SLI S71 :j S9 � 591 � , �53
S
85 50 50 a p 40 201 ,10 50 7 f'
0000000 . aD
0 , o� t
deo O � o
150 z h 100 50 19 2U t ( O) o O M
�,2 57575 150 z
106
Q f3 f4 f5
�a
� s r4 L,,� - 12t a n s !s = — 1
Z
A
Ton,
r n 1► n 10 19 i
t 0 0 75 5 75 150
�•
S T. t
. .nY
SO -.
60
4 R.M. on. 15, -G. 28.
CONDO PLAN, C.R. 3353-26!
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
- t1
J Attachment 2
NIPOMO BTkEET
s E
VMW
i
i
A
a
rl
W
� pr
„ow
498W
E"a�w��a�Nv LOCATION SURVEY
®HVEWPMENT
A8600IATE6 AP1V .>ha10-1r PI�RI7�OiV of LOT 0a,
raraarq tiao Swom pooAw tft BLOW 0 AV VW MY Or U01.
Attachment 2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CUEsTATITLE COMPANY Doc No: 1998-075422 Rpt No: 00094356
AND WHEN RECORDW MAIL TO:
Mark A. Coward end Susan S.
Official Records 1 RF -1 13.00
Coward San Luis Obispo Co. ,SLO 257.40
Julie L. Rodewald ;
1535 Nipomo Street Recorder ;
San Luis Obi pLx...GA 93401 Nov 1.3, 1998 '
Time: 08:00
{ 3] ,TOTAL 270.40
ESCROW NO.SL-711474LH TITLE ORDER NO.71147
GRANT DEED
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S)DECLARE(s) r• Fix suo E'�br+ STTATE
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX Is 8_Q61-410
IXI computed on full value of property conveyed, or --
I i computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances iemelning at time of sale.
I I Unincorporated area [Xi City of San Luis Obispo,AND
FORA VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
THOMAS G-PAPPAS and CAROL F. PAPPAS, Husband and Wife as Community Property, as to an
undivided one-half interest and DAVID A.PRICE and SHARON A. PRICE, Husband and Wife as
Community Property. as to an undivided one-half interest
hereby GRANT(s)to:
MARK A.COWARD and SUSAN S.COWARD, Husband and Wife an Joist Tenants
that certain real property In the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
dascribad as follows:
FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
A.P. 9003,616,017
DATE)October 19, 199a
STATE of -Z. 'r
co r Q s mss app
on
b ore a, r
a Nate r in %#w Carol F ppas- a
v
LIM nce
on the bash of
sathfactery evklonod to be the parson(a)whose nsmeiel
Were subscribed to the whhln kmftment and a-albwdedeed Bron ce
to res that hakkafthey mtascuted the same IWhhelr
authorized caeclWesl,and that 1 y'isffi rltheb slanstursts)
an the kratru.nent the personls).or the entity upon behaN of
which the paraen(e)acted,executed the Inetnanant. .AO ��
.WITNE83 my hand and official seal. e�/L#115
Em Angeles QxM
W comm.makes May3.201D1
Signature
(This area for of clal notarial seal) i
Mali tai statements Ux Mark A Coward and Susen S Coward 488 Sanderpoek Street Lula Obiwo CA 99401
I - 13
Attacriment
w No. SL-71147.lLH
EXHIBIT "A"
THAT PORTION OF LOT 6 IN BLOCK 69, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO MADE BY HARRIS AND WARD AND FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 AND LOT 1 IN BLOCK
59, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF PART OF MURRAY AND CHURCH'S ADDITION TO THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: '
COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET 93.6 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 3 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK 59 OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED BY RUBY AGNES ORR IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 134, PAGE 117 OF DEEDS, RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES To NIPOMO STREET AND ALONG THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED 160 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 81N BLOCK 69, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY UNE NORTHWESTERLY 46.6 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO NIPOMO STREET 150 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY UNE OF NIPOMO STREET;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY UNE 46.6 FEET TO THE POIK OF BEGINNING.
ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY FOR A ROADWAY 10 FEET IN WIDTH ACROSS THAT PORTION OF SAID T
6 LYING BETWEEN ISLAY STREET AND THE PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBED AND ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY UNE OF SAID LOT 6.
U- �.
" Attachment 2
i
C
0041
990 Palm SUW
Sen Lula Oblspo.CA 93401 t.A 1•i u
PLEASE READ REVERSE SIDE
APPLICATION NUMBER: ARCH 52-03
1535 NIPOMO,SAN LUIS OBISPO
R6wWW COWbu0ng hWWo house.
FILE NUMBER:52-03
OCCUPANT
5741SLAY
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 83401-4344
HEARING DATE: Mey 27.20M
FOR QUESTIONS CONTACT:
PAM RICCI,telephone: (SOS}751-716B
Architectural Review Commission Action Update 01-00-99 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 2
WIk&
Choose a Destination... -�
Smirch CmW Us r
About the Dept
.. Architectural Review Commission Action Update
Regular Meeting
iWhat's New
Housing June 16, 2003 Monday 5:00 P.M.
Documents Online ROLL CALL: Commrs. Allen Root, Ze'ka Howard,Jim Lopes, David Smut
Greg Wilhelm, Vice-Chair Michael Boudreau,and Chairperson Charles
Permits Stevenson. All of the Commissioners were present.
lFees
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The order of the agenda was not modified.
�FAAdvisopy• Bodies PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment other than on
particular agenda items.
LHOW ate we doing?l I
Department Home PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2138 Broad Street. ARC PA 13-03; Review of exterior dining
facility and public art; C-N-H zone, The Pizza Brokers, applicant.
(Pam Ricci)
' On a 7-0 vote, the ARC granted final approval to plans to add outdoor
dining, make landscaping changes to the City's water conservation
demonstration garden, and Install a public art sculpture. Commission
discussion focused on the landscaping palette, specifically projected Ovate
consumption and the aesthetics of selected plants, based on a request by
the City Council. The ARC debated the ramifications of Including a small
turf area. The applicant wanted the turf area to visually tle in with the
landscaping at Fine Station 1 across the street. Staff had recommended
that a drought tolerant type of groundcover be substituted for the turf.
The ARC ultimately suggested, but did not mandate the change from turf
to groundcover.They were comfbrtable with the project landscape
architect's report at the meeting that the proposed landscape would not
consume more water than the existing plants.
2. 1535 Nipomo Street.ARC MI 52-03; Review of additions to
contributing historic property and reduced side yard from 10 feet
to 8 feet; R-2-H zone; Mark and Susan Coward, applicants. (Pant•
Ricci)
On a 7-0 vote, the ARC granted final approval to the proposed additions,
htto www.ci.san-Itis-obispo.ca.us/communitydevelopmendarchrev/061602.asp 6M/2003
Attachment 2
Architecwrai Review Commission Action Updat Page 2 of 3
1 -7
including n exception to allo 8-foot side yard on the north side of
the house w - a would be required, based on findings. The
Commission applauded the applicants` efforts to create a new second floo
without making significant changes to the roof forth or building footprint.
3. 1771 Johnson Avenue.AR 1C 77-01; Rev w of nine em
attached and detached condominium units to replace existing Q
apartments; R-3 zone; Richard Porter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) U_
On a vote of 7-0, The ARC voted to approve a final design for the project 's
site.The design favored by the ARC was not one of the 2 options
proposed by staff or Planning Commission, but was an earlier design
option that proposed 9 detached units. Approval was granted for 7 one
bedroom units and 2 studio units, all detached.The applicant mentioned,
however that the studio units would share a lot with other one-bedroom
units. The ARC felt that the detached.design worked better to improve
Interior circulation, provided better articulation and a better transition
from Johnson Avenue. Commissioner Stevenson suggested the garages b
Increased to a 10-foot opening to facilitate easier vehicle maneuvering. A
commissioners agreed that a street-yard setback exception should be
granted to provide more interior site space and better circulation.
Commissioners felt that overlook could be resolved by adjusting the
windows at the rear of the units. Commissioner Smith expressed concern!
over the access to and from the site at Johnson Avenue, however
commissioners felt the City Public Works Department should resolve the
transportation concerns. On a motion by Commissioner Wilhelm, seconde
by Commissioner Boudreau the project was granted final approval. In
summary, Commissioner Stevenson expressed how residential
development is changing to small lot detached units and that City
Standards have not adjusted to the changes. Commissioners also felt tha-
the automobile should not dictate the project design.
4. Downtown Core Area.ARC 73-03; Review of proposed
replacement recycling containers for the Downtown Core Area;
City of SLO Utilities Department, applicant. (Michael Codron)
On A motion by Commissioner Howard and seconded by Commissioner
Boudreau the new trash can top recycling receptacles were approved by
the ARC 7-0. The discussion Included questions as to why a stainless stee
finish is the only option.The applicant responded with the fact that the
stainless steel finish requires the lowest maintenance and other finishes
and powder coats have been attempted with limited success.
S. 989 Chorro Street. ARC 36-03; Review of new retaining wall
Along the north side of the creek walk.in Mission Plaza; PF-H zone
City of SLO Public works Department,applicant. (Phil Dunstnore)
On a 7-0 vote the ARC approved a retaining wall design for the creek
Pathway adjacent to San Luis Creek.The Public Works department offere,
3 design scenarios for the wall, favoring an Allen block design for its low
cost, versatility and ease of construction.The ARC was confident with the
Allen block design since it Is only a 2 to 2 1/2 foot tall wall and the Allen
httpJ/www.d.um-lois-Obispo.cs.us/communitydevelopment/archmv/061602.asp V=2003
t-r •rj
Attachment 2
Architectural Review Commission Action Update 01-00-99 — Page 3 of 3
block was found to have a variegated style similar to many of the flnlshes
found throughout the creek area.
COMMENT a DISCUSSION:
6. Staff
A. Staff briefly discussed the next ARC agenda.
7. Commission
A. The ARC asked staff to update the Commission on AB 1866 and recent
Municipal Code changes.
B. The ARC asked staff to bring in a vehicle turning template to explain it:
use.
The Commission AD30URNED to a regular meeting scheduled for
Monday, July 7, 2003, at S:00 p.m., In the Council Hearing Room at City
Hall, 990 Palm Street.
About the D@pattment I ProgrAm*.&,c&0dgU I HggMng I p r.V.MvfLt5
Permits I Tees I PAOs I Adviggr Bodes I D2aartmenthoM0
About the Clty I ylsitingaLQ I How are we dofW I rprnptoyMgt)%I FAQs
what's N9n I aty dymn&wA I Bids&Proposals I EcpBpmirmeyeloi Rharrt
02003,City of San Luis Obispo
hup://www.ci.m4uis-0bispo c Lus/communitydevelopment/archmv/061602.asp 6/23/2003
Ho
o;--i1 91
P
90613 ' .
°�► ;� ;am
1 •
,,� ;j' •;_ ISI���"•"` _
- Attachment 3
-
RECEIMLRweived
JUN 2 6 2003
QW, A City of SLO CITY CLERK
san lues oslspo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION I. APPELLAWINFO/RMATION
got 40
Name Mailin Address and p Code
49h 5---
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION Z SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth In Tdie 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code(co y attached),I hereby appeal the decision of the:
4,c�eTea&taX
(Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision.bein appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered:
3. The application or project was entitled: ^ O
Gt-rZ
4. 1 discussed th tter with the following City=nember
on k OD
(Staff Members Name and Department) (Date)
SECTION 1 REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what ac tionts 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 otherside.
Pagel of 3 -
Attachment 3
Reason for Appeal conf/nued
r '
I
i
Com• �Q�L� V�" ,'�'�-'
SECT1aN 4. PELL }M RES> 1VSIBILtTY
Tlxe Saiz 1 ills abl§ o City;'iCou�cil valuesp'pb4kp1.0 atidtin 1 god¢' 1a end=
encoureiges a�1 4 s c r invglvementr The p,,i�y �'lacL.e most lri �m°i�<
chMEN, a� � b ;3
considerable woik snd ago�f, including agenc7repg pr, pelrstion arlq prii lao
Therefore,your ri&di giceroise an appaaC Go me
►y; b n respons tjll tt x 4 Con
a�peal,'ptease tJhderst nd �t it t4h
mush be•lseard c -v hdays R.6i!n.fil��i�,this ttS lit
0�1 will be
notifiedJrr wricig'of tki�,ecact date yoyr apReal wif4ck tdu�ed to be, Rerd;bftCe" h9
f oundL You tj%our Cspi se>fmflvs will be.a e d ttiend the pu�li dear �,,a 1,d d be
pretrare to m$ke'ydur ease ' Your teimdny is l�rrift'e' ,�b 10 rninutl :
A''o,an>9nusulos rkiaytbe g�nted tiftder'rtRj� td`' usual pi.¢gn1�s anc��r^ !iu, egl you
nQed to rvq`u9st BlCont�hGafide,you mufsf submit yo�rl��quast in v� tthg t ,MI Cit � fs , tease be
adv�sed'that if�ovr reQtest �r continclgnce fs recely #ter the aps�t�e'faotioIq,,T a publics the
Council tray not b9 ableo' rant the rdgtiest f4►con�ance Subth(liig,a regq A. aort�usnce
does novg!4- tttq�thatalf i Cll be grant��lF th fd/o h lit the dISGn4�[3ri df 3h�i6�t?,r t7nolC`� r
, y t 119 r4 " :f 11�h14 41r e,
l herety �ee; �rt+�parAd/pt�seAq X4' 5 ' ,leve fy �iearontMy, hlftvhen
ears appear is Vahedular#Ora pub1�, ' ;ea,� fit,
`ire
1
1p;
!
This item Is hereby catendared for
c: City Attorney kj
City Administrative officer
Department Head
Advisory Body Ch rson
W l
MPage 2 of 3
3103
_ Attachment 3
1-02
-�, _
r1ua��unCni 3
a)t� dcl,� -
�� ��,
f
;&�, 4,p '7�& Ei "d—& 'j, .
w0140- .
- 4L
�,�'`���-►�-a-�e `�`A � -F TMJ -e+-� r�d.A
" 7
IAL
ou �, JOA
a� a" �� / c a� o- ,,,,� fid • �� �
too
A(
-�3
Attachment 3
.2-3, o?on 3
ol
�P . ".tom a-,, a,��
-defi-o-���PAOJ,—Odi
(A C M I s a - 6 3)
moo.
7-0
546 Ca 9,3�v�
Attachment 4
i�I��IIIIIIIIII�I � � ty �\
IIIM III
o san vu�s oB�sly
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
June 20, 2003
Mark and Susan Coward
1535 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC MI 52-03: 1535 Nipomo Street
Review of additions to contributing historic property and reduced side
yard from 10 feet to 8 feet
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Coward:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 16, 2003, granted final
approval to your project, based on the following findings:
Findings
1. The proposed additions are architecturally compatible with the historic house and
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic
Properties because:
a. The proposed materials of the additions will match existing.
b. The roof form and slope facing the street will be preserved with construction of
the additions.
2. The proposed additions to the house appear integrated with the original structure
as called for in the Community Design Guidelines.
3. The ARC supports granting an exception to allow an 8400t side yard setback along
the north property line, where a 10-foot setback would normally be required, for the
small dormer addition to the listed nonconforming historic structure consistent with
Section 17.14.020 of the Zoning Regulations because:
a. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity.
b. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard since the
existing house has a nonconforming 4-foot side yard setback.
c. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction.
(r� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
i- �
Attachment 4
ARC MI 52-03
Page 2
d. The exception is of a minor nature, affecting a small triangular portion of the
dormer feature, and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent
property.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless
the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community
Development Director may grant a single one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Z/RonadWhisen d
Deputy Commuhity Development Director
Development Review
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Woody Combrink
1432 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 5
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION (MINUTES
JUNE 169 2003
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Greg.Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau,
Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles
Stevenson.
Absent: None.
Staff: Associate Planners Pamela Ricci and Philip Dunsmore.
2. 1535 Nipomo Street. ARC MI 52-03; Review of additions to contributing
historic property and reduced side yard from 10 to 8 feet; R-2-H zone;
Mark and Susan Coward, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final
approval of the project, based on findings, including a finding in support of the
northern side yard setback exception.
Commr. Wilhelm questioned if the side yard setback exception only related to the
roof dormer.
Planner Ricci replied yes, and noted that the exception only applied to the
dormer on the north side where a 4-foot setback exists for the house.
Commr. Lopes asked if they are allowed to increase the non-conformity.
Planner Ricci explained that the new construction needs to conform to current
setback requirements, and that part of the request is to approve the minor yard
exception for the dormer.
Chairperson Stevenson noted that the new dormers have to conform to the
current setback requirements, and questioned if this is what they are requesting
an exception to.
Planner Ricci replied yes. She explained that there is an exception clause in the
non-conforming structure section of the zoning regulations that applies
specifically to historic structures, but that section is generally utilized when a
known pre-existing building element is being replaced that would currently
require an exception, rather than a new element that did not previously exist.
Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 5
June 16, 2003
Page 2
Woody Combrink, 1432 Torro Street, SLO, Project Architect, stated that they
concur completely with staffs conclusions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that she does not
support any changes to historical structures.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Lopes questioned if the building has rafter tails.
Mr. Combrink replied yes, and explained all the rafter tails are mimicking the
existing.
Commr. Smith expressed support and feels this is the proper way to increase the
size of a historic house.
Commr. Root moved for final approval of the project, based on findings including
an exception to allow an 8-foot side yard on the north side of the house where a
10-foot yard would generally be required. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau.
Chairperson Stevenson noted that the subject project is the type of addition that
was envisioned with this style of historic building. He expressed support for the
solution that the applicant came up with.
AYES: Commrs. Root Boudreau, Wilhelm, Howard, Lopes, Smith, and
Chairperson Stevenson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 7-0.
`"
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEm# 2
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner(781-7168) FR MEETING DATE: June 16, 2003
FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review
FILE NUMBER: ARC 52-03
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Nipomo Street
SUBJECT: Review of plans for additions to an existing historic house, located on the
southwestern side of Nipomo Street, between Islay and Buchon Streets, including a side yard
setback exception for the new dormer on the north elevation to allow an 8-foot side yard where a
10-foot yard would normally be required.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project, based on findings, including a finding in support of the
northern side yard setback exception.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The owners of 1535 Nipomo Street, Mark and Susan Coward, would like to add on to the main
house located on the site. The existing building footprint will remain essentially the same, but
there will be a small addition at the rear of the ground floor to expand the kitchen. The main
addition will occur with a 620 square-foot new second floor.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the project on May 27, 2003 because it
involves changes to a property located on the Contributing List of Historic Structures in a
Historical Preservation Overlay Zone. The CHC unanimously supported the project, finding that
the proposed additions were architecturally compatible with the historic house and consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. Typically an addition
to a single-family house in a historic district that is supported by the CHC would be handled as a
minor or incidental architectural review application administratively. However, the CHC
specifically referred the project to the ARC because of input received at the meeting from three
neighbors to allow for further discussion of their issues.
Data Summary
Address: 1535 Nipomo Street
Applicant: Mark and Susan Coward
Representative: Woody Combrink
Zoning: R-2-H (Medium-Density Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay zoning)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
� � U l
ARC 52-03 (Coward Additio. Attachment 6
Page 2
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Class 31, Section 15331, Historical
Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Action Deadline: August 12, 2003
Site Description
The flat, rectangular site consists of 6,740 square feet and is developed with a house and garage.
The project site is located in the area south of downtown known as the Old Town neighborhood.
Other significant historical structures in the immediate vicinity include: the Dana House at 644
Islay Street; the Erickson House at 687 Islay Street; and the Willett House at 670 Islay Street.
The City's Land Use Inventory indicates that the house was built before 1927, but does not
provide a known date of construction. The house has a rectangular form with shingle siding, a
porch with thick square columns, and a Dutch hip roof(front facing gable on hip) with projecting
eaves and slightly exposed rafters (see photograph below). The architectural style of the house
can be categorized as Neoclassical Rowhouse with Victorian Cottage overtones.
fi
I
r O
1535 Nipomo (Existing Street View)
EVALUATION
The following paragraphs discuss details of the project and its consistency with City plans and
policies:
1. Building Architecture
The existing steeply sloping roof provides a large roof volume that lends itself to creating the
second floor addition. As supported by the CHC, the cross-gable dormer projections are balanced
Attachment 6
ARC 52-03 (Coward Additio,
Page 3
and consistent with the building's architectural style. The second floor addition does not increase
the overall height of the structure, and most importantly, does not significantly change street views
of the house. Proposed materials of the additions will match existing.
One alternative would be to have hipped, rather than gable end dormers. The project architect
looked at this, but settled on the gable dormers to allow for more volume and light at the second
floor. The Dutch hip roof has both the gable and hipped roof forms, which is appropriate to either
style of dormer.
2. View Blockage
The existing and proposed height of the house is 24 feet. The allowed height for structures in the
R-2 zone is 35 feet. While the dormer additions will add to the roof volume, the change will be
much less significant than other typical second-story additions. In staff's opinion, the proposed
additions will not significantly impair the views of neighbors.
3. Side Yard Setback Exception
The existing house is nonconforming in terms of its setback along the north property line—4 feet
exists where a 5-foot minimum is required. The dormer addition will be set back an additional 4
feet resulting in an 8-foot setback to the property line. The City's zoning regulations require that
there be a greater setback for structures as they get taller. There is a minimal area of the dormer
wall at the roof peak that would require-a 10-foot setback.
Section 17.14.020 of the zoning regulations allows for additions to historic structures that may
not comply with current setback requirements. This was intended to allow reasonable additions
to historic structures that often do not fully conform to current yard requirements. Staff has
included findings in support of allowing the minor yard exception in this case.
The side yard setback requirements will be met on the south side of the house. In terms of
potential overlook concerns with the properties to the north and south, there will be single
windows added in the second-floor dormers. This appears to be a reasonable request and
potential overlook issues should be minimized, given that there will be 14 feet of separation
between the house and nearest structure on the north, and 18'6"of separation on the south.
4. Other Issues
Some of the concerns of an adjacent neighbor brought up at the CHC meeting were beyond the
purview of the CHC. These concerns included how a truck of the applicants was parked in an
access easement off of Islay Street that crosses the rear of the neighbor's lot, how the applicants'
addition may affect the neighbor's continued cable internet access, and how the applicants'
garbage cans were stored.
Staff has found that none of these issues are in violation of City ordinances. They are best
handled as civil matters between the two property owners, or in the case of the cable Internet
access concern, with Charter Communications.
1 r
ARC 52-03(Coward Addition,_ Att3ChlY7@f1t .6
Page 4
5. Relevant General Plan Policies
As supported by the CHC, the proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan
policies (numbering consistent with the General Plan Digest), which attest to the City's
commitment to preservation of its historic resources:
Land Use Element(LU)
• LU 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility
Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored.
• LU 6.6.1: Historical Resources
Historical resources should be identified, preserved, and where necessary and possible, restored.
• LU 6.6.2: Building Conservation
Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially
changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and
safety and other means to avoid the threat are infeasible. The street appearance of buildings
which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained.
• LU 6.63: Remodeling and New Buildings
Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent
with the original structure. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant
sites, should reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures.
Housing Element(H)
• H 3.2.6: Landmark and Historic Residential Buildings
The City shall preserve landmark and historic residential buildings.
Conservation Element(CO)
• CO 7.1.1: Preservation of Historic Sites
The City should adopt the policy to: preserve sites identified with the history of the City, County,
State, and the Nation, to preserve buildings and groups of buildings of unique or characteristic
architecture, and to preserve smaller sites and single buildings that are symbolic of the many
social and ethnic pioneers.
• CO 7.1.8: Authenticity
The restoration of historic buildings or sites should seek the greatest degree of authenticity
practicable. Lists of appropriate experts should be provided and requirements should be
established that experts be consulted.
6. Consistency with the Community Design.Guidelines
Section 5.5 C. of the Community Design Guidelines includes a discussion of additions to single-
family homes in older neighborhoods. This section indicates that additions should look
integrated with the original structure, which the CHC agreed that the proposed addition was. The
guidelines also suggest that second-story additions should be stepped back from the front facade
I -3�
ARC 52-03(Coward Additions Attachment 6
Page 5
to be less noticeable from the street. The short walls of the dormer roof projections are set back
further than the first floor walls.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant schematic approval with direction.
2. Deny the project. Action denying the project should include the basis for denial.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the proposed additions, including an exception to allow an 8-foot side yard
on the north side of the house where a 10-yard would be required, based on the following findings,
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed additions are architecturally compatible with the historic house and consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties because:
a. The proposed materials of.the additions will match existing.
b. The roof form and slope facing the street will be preserved with construction of the
additions.
2. The proposed additions to the house appear integrated with the original structure as called for
in the Community Design Guidelines.
3. The ARC supports granting an exception to allow an 8-foot side yard setback along the north
property line, where a 10-foot setback would normally be required, for the small dormer
addition to the listed nonconforming historic structure consistent with Section 17.14.020 of
the zoning regulations because:
a. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity.
b. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard since the
existing house has a nonconforming 4-foot side yard setback.
C. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction.
d. The exception is of a minor nature,affecting a small triangular portion of the dormer
feature,and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property.
Attached: Vicinity map, 5-27-03 CHC meeting update,Neoclassic Rowhouse description, Letter
from Doug Rion& Debbie Belt-Rion
ArcM-03(Coward addition)
133
-H
-2-H
PF-H
-H
c9 R-2-
0
R-3-H P�
R-2- A�Qo�o R-2-H
-2- y
�A
OJG�O� 0,0
R-2-H
R-2 µ''
4 R-2-H
R-
y R-2-H
R-2
R-2
-2
-2
R-2
R-2-PD
VICINITY MAP ARCMI 52-03
N
1535 Nnipomo
A
Attachment 6
/ 6
r•
/-1
3
Q
Z
LU
v ••
LLI
Z W O W n iJ
U N
Co (Nf1 N U)
UU' Q I J
W J U
N
N
O
_
O W
U_
W O > LW
F ILI
z Of
i
Q ^
QW I I U O tz
Co Q
N z g w g o
w 3 = vNi v U
IL F- w
� o W 3 0��, OIX
W
o a
U U W
ul S o wa
° N i wn
3 3 0 z W v O'
LL
c IL N N (D O
v Z LL LC O Z
,n W Z 0
0 W W Ln 3 -JI N a�
c a 0 � >
i tL
_ Lu
m (Ln 8 O
I I 1 I I 1
�3
� J Q
F N
ZW
Q O
I a
_ J Attachment 6
Meeting Update
Cultural Heritage Committee
May 27, 2003 Tuesday 5:30 p.m.
Call Members to Order: Chairperson Paula Juelke Carr, Tom Wheeler, Bob Schrage,
Chuck Crotser, Sandy Baer, Barbara Breska, and Frank Scotti.
Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: At this time, people may address the committee about items
not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to the staff and, if action
by the committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
Bruce Miller, 296 Hope Street, presented a proposal for a historic monument
dedicated to Japanese-American citizens of San Luis Obispo. He suggested the
monument be located on Brook Street, site of the original Nippon Tract and
formerly named "Eto Street" after a prominent Japanese-American family who
lived in the area. Committee members asked staff to schedule the item for the
June CHC meeting.
Mary Beth Schroder, 2085 VVIIding Lane, asked the Committee to uphold City
historic preservation standards when reviewing new development proposals.
MINUTES: On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee
member Crotser, the minutes of the April 28, 2003 meeting were approved as amended
on a 7-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1535 Nipomo Street. ARCMI 52-03. Remodel Contributing historic house in R-
2-H zone; Mark and Susan Coward, applicants.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and Woody Combrink,. architect described the
project and responded to questions. Three neighbors spoke in opposition to the project
due to concerns with view blockage, privacy, driveway access, architectural scale and
character. Mary Beth Schroder felt that the proposed addition was out of character with
the house's original design and should not be approved. The applicant, Susan
Coward, responded to the concems. Most CHC members. felt.the proposed.addition
was consistent with the house's and neighborhood's historic architectural character, but
felt the addition may pose other planning issues that are outside of the CHC"s purview..
Committee member Crotser felt that the addition could be consistent provided that
architectural details and materials matched existing. Committee member Scotti felt the
Attachment 6
CHC Meeting Update, May 27, 2003
Page 2
proposed addition posed a dramatic change that was moving away from the house's
original character.
On a motion by Chairperson Carr, seconded by Committee member Crotser, the
Committee voted 7-0 to determine that the proposed addition is architecturally
compatible with the historic house and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, based on the following findings:
A. The proposed architectural details and materials of the addition will
match the existing house.
B. The roof form and slope facing the street will be preserved with
construction of the additions.
The Committee forwarded its determination to the Architectural Review Commission to
allow the Commission to address neighbor concerns, including view blockage, privacy,
and driveway access.
inal windows for weather protection and security at the historic Kindergarten
Sc h I; PF-H Zone; City of San Luis Obispo; Public Works Department,
Applica
Jeff Hook presented staff report and Dave Smith, Building Maintenance Supervisor,
explained the project mittee members appreciated the effort to preserve existing
historic windows and hard and felt this was a creative solution to the problems of
security and weather protection. Committee members noted, however, that framing
pattern of the proposed inserts diffe from the muntin pattern of the existing windows,
and that putting a "soft shade"in front he historic window would change the historic
look of the building by blocking the origins indows much of the time. They felt the
proposal was a good start, but that the City ould set a high standard for historic
preservation and asked Mr. Smith to review alte tive designs that would provide a
design that more closely matched original wind s using narrower or "lighter"
framework inserts, or to consider fully rehabilitating existing windows to meet
security and weather protection requirements, similar to hat was done with the
Adriance Apartments. Committee member Crotser suggeste at the inserts could be
powder coated in a color that matched the existing windows to a id the need for hand
painting. Chairperson Carr liked the "reversibility"of the proposed ign, but preferred
to see alternatives explored that did not include horizontal slider indow panels.
"Hopper"or"awning"operable window inserts were discussed.
On a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee ember
Schrage, the Committee voted 7-0 to continue the project to allow the applic t to
consider alternative designs and materials.
Attachment 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
May 27, 2003 MAY 2 9 2003
Re: ARCMI 52-03
COr":"'Jf21?Y GE`:ELCPE}„ ,rT
1535 Nipomo St.
We own and reside on the property adjacent to the rear of the above referenced
address. We wholeheartedly support the proposed remodel of the Coward
residence at the above referenced address. Unfortunately we were unable to attend
this evening's CHC hearing to voice our support for the project and have since
learned that the applicants were blind-sided by petty, negative comments and false
allegations at that public meeting from tenants of a rental property adjacent to the
project. Those tenants were motivated by one individual who provided the others
with the misinformation about the proposed project. They were all led to believe
that an apartment complex was being proposed on the project site. Anyone who
took the time to inform themselves about the project knows that is simply
incorrect.
The individual responsible for the misinformation has been a tenant at 574 Islay
St. for less than six months and that address has seen six tenants in the past 5 years
we have resided here. We question that individual's commitment to the
neighborhood and cannot understand their motivation, actions and comments at
today's hearing.
The applicants, Mark, Susan and son Cole Coward, are wonderful neighbors and
dear friends. We have enjoyed being their neighbors at our current location for
nearly five years, and for many years prior to that in our former Sandercock Street
neighborhood. They are very excited about the plans to improve their home in a
neighborhood they adore. The Coward's are a wonderful asset to our community
and did not deserve the personal attack they received from a few uninformed
people in front of the CHC.
It is our understanding that because of what occurred at the meeting this evening
that the CHC has referred the project to the ARC, which will require another
hearing. We are flabbergasted that such a simple renovation project should require
Attachment 6
this additional level of review and additional expense to the applicant. We
understand that the majority of CHC members commented favorably on the
project. The project should be approved at the staff level and save everyone the
time and resources that an ARC hearing would require.
We would be happy to provide any additional information or respond to any
questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration,
gee
Doug Rion
Debbie Belt-Rion
572 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
546-0507
J
n Attachment 6
CI Y IIS n � Lu sO. SFO
June 4, 2003
�!UPd 6 x003
Andrew &Jennifer Wright
1127 Tulip Ct COININIUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Architectural Review Commission
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 1535 Nipomo St Proposed Remodel
Dear Architectural Review Commission:
We are writing to you in regard to Mark& Susan Coward and their proposed remodel at 1535
Nipomo St. It has come to our attention that one of their neighbors,who opposes them remodeling
their home, has been raising questions regarding their integrity and intentions.
We have known Mark and Susan Coward.since June 1993 when we moved next door to them on
Sandercock St. in San Luis. They were the first people to welcome us to the neighborhood, and
during the five years that we lived on Sandercock St.,they were considerate and friendly neighbors.
They made many improvements to their home on Sandercock St. during the time we were neighbors,
and each improvement added to the value of their home and the look of the overall neighborhood.
Mark and Susan love San Luis Obispo. Their enthusiasm for their community is evident both in their
career choices, Mark is a teacher at Laguna Middle School, Susan was the Executive Director of
SLONET(and probably taught ''/s the community how to use the internet during it's infancy stages),
and their participation in a wide variety of community events such as Farmer's Market and the
Christmas Parade.
Since they purchased the home located on 1535Nipomo St,they have made notable improvements to
the property, including painting the exterior of the home, and landscaping the front and back yards.
We are confident that knowing their character, family values and considerate nature,the remodeling
that they are proposing is for the purpose of improving the qualityof their lives and that of their son
Cole and would cause no detriment to the neighborhood or community.
Sincerely,
Andrew W ght f ;right
5448468
I � �D
Attachment 7
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO A HISTORIC HOUSE LOCATED AT
AT 1535 NIPOMO STREET (ARC MI 52-03)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June
16, 2003, and approved the project, based on findings; and
WHEREAS, Patricia Griffin, 574 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California, filed an
appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Larry Casalegno, 1750 Prefumo Canyon Road # 81, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 2003, and
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action .of June 16, 2003, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC MI 52-03), the appellants' statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
1. The proposed additions are architecturally compatible with the historic house and consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties because:
a. The proposed materials of the additions will match existing.
b. The roof form and slope facing the street will be preserved with construction of the
additions.
2. The proposed additions to the house appear integrated with the original structure as called for
in the Community Design Guidelines.
f,4
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
3. Based on the action of the ARC, the Council supports granting an exception to allow an 8-
foot side yard setback along the north property line, where a 10-foot setback would normally
be required, for the small dormer addition to the listed nonconforming historic structure
consistent with Section 17.14.020 of the zoning regulations because:
a. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare or persons residing at the site or in the vicinity.
b. No useful purpose would be achieved by requiring the full side yard since the
existing house has a nonconforming 4-foot side yard setback.
C. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
likely as a result of the side yard setback reduction.
d. The exception is of a minor nature,affecting a small triangular portion of the dormer
feature,and will not significantly affect the solar access of the adjacent property.
SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) is hereby denied. Therefore, the Commission's action to approve the
project is upheld.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15`h day of July, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
ttomey Jonathan P. Lowell
Res1ARC 52-03(Coward-deny appeal).doc
e
1 ��3
Attachment 7
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO A HISTORIC HOUSE LOCATED AT
AT 1535 NIPOMO STREET (ARC MI 52-03)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June
16, 2003, and approved the project, based on findings; and
WHEREAS, Patricia Griffin, 574 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California, filed an
appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Larry Casalegno, 1750 Prefumo Canyon Road # 81, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 2003, and
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of June 16, 2003, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC 10-00), the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed additions will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living
or working at the site or in the vicinity,because(Council to state reasons).
2. The proposed additions are inappropriate at the proposed location and will not be
compatible with surrounding land uses because(Council to state reasons).
SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission(ARC) is hereby upheld. Therefore,the project is denied.
� 44
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15`h day of July, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jonathan P. Lowell
ResWRC 52-03(Coward-uphold appeal).doc
f - �
i
Retain this document for
future ,ouncil rpeeting f`
June 27, 2003 I� a3 _tV
te, if agendized
Andrew &Jennifer Wright
1127 Tulip Ct
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Architectural Review Commission
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �� 1
Re: 1535 Nipomo St Proposed Remodel
#ARC MI 52-03 ,
Dear Architectural Review Commission:
ni a`ry�
We are writing to you in regard to Mark& Susan Coward and their proposed remodel at 1535,
Nipomo St. It has come to our attention that one of their neighbors, who opposes them remodeling
their home,has been raising questions regarding their integrity and intentions.
We have known Mark and Susan Coward since June 1993 when we moved next door to them on
Sandercock St. in San Luis. They were the first people to welcome us to the neighborhood, and
during the five years that we lived on Sandercock St., they were considerate and friendly neighbors.
They made many improvements to their home on Sandercock St. during the time we were neighbors,
and each improvement added to the value of their home and the look of the overall neighborhood.
Mark and Susan love San Luis Obispo. Their enthusiasm for their community is evident both in their
career choices,Mark is a teacher at Laguna Middle School, Susan was the Executive Director of
SLONET (and probably taught '/z the community how to use the intemet during it' s infancy stages),
and their participation in a wide variety of community events such as Farmer' s Market and the
Christmas Parade.
Since they purchased the home located on 1535 Nipomo St,they have made notable improvements to
the property, including painting the exterior of the home, and landscaping the front and back yards.
We are confident that knowing their character, family values and considerate nature, the remodeling
that they are proposing is for the purpose of improving the quality of their lives and that of their son
Cole and would cause no detriment to'the neighborhood or community.
I
ri er Wright#5 -8468 JUN 3 Q ?�D�
SLO CIT`! COUNCIL ;
JACK & CAROL BARNES
RED FILE 1356 Balboa Street
M I G AGENDA San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
DA 0 ITEM # i [ (805) 543-3213
jbarnes@slonet.org; cebarnes@slonet.org -COUNCIL rDD DIR
,.�/
CAO f FIN DIR
July 3, 2003 CAO -2"FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 2,-?W DIR
CLERK/CRIG e2"POLICE CHF
❑ DE HEADS -0REC DIR
City Council -&UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street _ Z?�IR DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 z �
Dear City Council:
I am writing in support of the building permit application by Mark and Susan Coward to
remodel their home at 1535 Nipomo Street in San Luis Obispo. I understand there have been
complaints about the intended project, including some which suggest that Mr. and Mrs. Coward
are uncaring about their neighbors and their historic neighborhood. I find this suggestion
unbelievable.
I have known Mark and Susan since 1996, both personally and professionally. Mark is a
dedicated and competent classroom teacher, as well as a man with strong community orientation.
Susan was born in SLO and Mark has lived here for 24 years. I met them initially when we were
all volunteers at SLONET, the original community computer network in San Luis Obispo. Susan
subsequently became SLONET's general manager, and I continued to work closely with her for
the five years of her tenure. She left after the birth of her son to be a full-time mother, but since
then she has continued to volunteer at SLONET. In addition to SLONET, both Mark and Susan
have been volunteers with a variety of community oriented activities and organizations as long as
I've known them.
When they were house-hunting for their current home, they were committed to finding a
house in the "historic" section of town, partly for the convenience of being able to walk to town,
but mainly because they wanted to five in that kind of neighborhood. They looked forward to
maintaining the character of the home and community even as they planned to make the house
more amenable to their needs. The idea they would do anything contrary to the ambience of their
neighborhood is simply ludicrous.
I am certain that if you find any substance to the complaints about the remodeling that
Mark and Susan plan, they will bend over backward to resolve the issues to everyone's best
interest, because that's the kind of people they are.
Sincerely,
�EElEIVED I Jack Barnes
SLO CITY COUNCIL
�Ill��llll Illi IIIIIIIIIII � ' ^'
�IIIIIIIIIIIIII@ IIIII
city of sAn 1 ,115 OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
July 10,2003 RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
Mark and Susan Coward DATE2�/'/D3 ITEM # EN
1535 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mark and Susan,
As you know,the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's June 16`h decision
regarding your project filed by Patrician Griffin and Larry Casalegno are set for a public hearing
before the City Council next Tuesday,July 15th. Please be advised that the,appellants filed the
attached letter(dated July 6th and received by the City on the 90)jointly withdrawing the appeal.
Therefore,the decision by the ARC to approve your project stands and the building permit may
now be issued. Additionally, the public hearing is hereby canceled.
I will contact by mail all of the individuals previously noticed about the public hearing, but
given the short time-line between now and then, I cannot be sure that everyone will receive the.
notice before the meeting. I trust that you, in the meantime, might have an opportunity to speak to
many of your neighbors who may have planned to attend.
Good luck on your project and have a fantastic summer!
Ce
e
Price, CMC
City Clerk
Enc.
c: City Council
Ken Hampian, CAO
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director
Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
7110UNCIL 2'Z�DD DIR
FZ�CAO '—/IN DIR
DIAQAO [�-FIRE CHIEF
ORNEY 01-PW DIR
EY-CLERK/ORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑ DE T H.�ADS D'F EC DIR
❑� '"� ErUTIL DIR
i3'4171 DIR
�� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of:its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
RED FILE
_LARRY WOODS MEE�-TIIING AGENDA
580 Islay _ — - DACE SEM _......
San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401
Phone(805)543-7511
July 01, 2003
To whom it may concern,
I am the assistant manager of the rental properties next door to Susan and Mark
Coward.
The tenant living at 574 Islay rents only the house and yard at that address.
The boundaries of the tenants property consists of a fully fenced back yard, the boundaries
of which are the fence line. And a front yard equal to the width of the house to include the
back yard fence, to the sidewalk.
The property line and use of the easement the tenant at 574 Islay is complaining Susan
and Mark Coward are misusing and misrepresenting are not included in the tenants
property. Therefore the tenant has no valid reason to be complaining about those things.
The owner of this property has stated he has no complaints about Susan and Mark
Cowards property line, use of the easement, or building plans.
The tenant at 574 Islay had an argument with Susan Coward long before the Cowards
building plans were made known. In my opinion the tenant at 574 Islay is not interested
in property lines or use of the easement, only in causing trouble for Susan and Mark
Coward to satisfy a personal grievance.
Sincere
Larry Woods
f �Yv�DttiG�
G�COU CIL Le-CDD DIR
CACAO ?'FIN DIR RECEIVED
01"ACAO a FIRE CHIEF i
L�ATTOPINEY C�PW DIR �UL 0 (0103
Q'CLERIVORIG C''POLICE CHF
❑ D PHEADS aRECDIR SLO CITY COUNCIL
2' IT DIR
w---2 HR DIR
RED FILE
July 9, 2003 MEETING AGENDA
Phillip Has TE /�`d?� ITEM # l
1051 Leff Street
San Luis Obispo
544-2065
Mayor David Romero
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Project m ARC Ml 52-03
City Council Agenda for.July 15, 2003
Mayor Romero,
We are writing to urge the City Council to approve the permit application for
improvements to the home of Mark and Susan Coward at 1535 Nipomo Street. We are
deeply dismayed that the permit process has been delayed time and again due to
unfounded and irrelevant complaints from a tenant in the neighborhood..
The Cowards have been friends of ours for over 3 years and we feel we know them well.
They are a conscientious family, cognizant of the benefits and responsibilities of living in
downtown San Luis Obispo. They have made significant improvements in the overall
appearance of their home and have put great effort into maintaining the historic character
of it. We too, own a home downtown and appreciate neighbors like the Cowards. Their
actions benefit all of us.
Our understanding is that the project has received unanimous approval from the Planning
Department, the Cultural Heritage Committee, and the Architectural Review
Commission. We believe the persons on these committees have already spent more than
sufficient time on this project and have already made an intelligent decision to approve it.
The issues raised by the appellant, aside from being extraneous,appear to be wrongly
motivated and misplaced vindictiveness.
We urge you to grant the permit and reject the appeal. It's a shame you are unable to also
reimburse the Cowards for time lost and unnecessary heartache. Thank you for your time.
Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
REIEIVED
- JUL 0 9 ?03 I
Conni%.a ,UNCIL, -ODD IR
E?CAO C'"IN DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL
3-ACAO GFIRE CHIEF
a-ATTORNEY M PW DIR
2-CLERK/ORIG D'POLICE CHF
PT HEADS O-REC DIR
/5 L�'UTIL DIR
r� ZHR D1R
RED FILE'
!
RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA
JULv X003 DAT 'Zk/63- ITEM #j.&,,
, . � v ,
SLO CITY COUNCIL
o cam- ' � Q.
��► r
appL CARcPui 2
w�
otru, +�L Rt`avt
J
15 lou�,n -fit- -{nom c, ov�
1a,PnacuI'c),rs �iti'r.,�.. �,v vt�{- �,obe- harr►� �
sem . We
�Du t(d
ffr
'COUNCIL - CDD DIP
CITCAO E FIN DIP
CACAO LTFIRE CHIEF +
0-ATTORNEY Lt`PW DIP •(fjl'-
O'CLERK/ORIG [:-POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT i;1EADS GREC DIP
ii ErUTIL DIP
CCL
oil >
c-(>Auxns �h OL Ute- fie' cv�
Id Wd017:90 £00Z 60 'In£ SOSO-ZV^-S08: 'ON Xtlj SNIAN3£ I NIAAI&J: W06A