HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/2005, PH 6 - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED 7-UNIT, DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT LOCTATED I councit Ma ling0,—
acEn6a Rep= 1�Numba�� �
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner ,51114
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED 7-
UNIT, DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT LOCTATED IN THE R-4 ZONE,
1231 LAUREL LANE (ARC 180-04.).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the General Plan conformity of the Architectural Review Commission's
approval of a 7=unit; detached apartment project located in the High=Density Residential (9-4)
zone; and either uphold the approval or deny the project, based on General Plan consistency
findings as specified by Council
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 1231 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative: Steven D. Pults &Associates
Zoning:R-4 (High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental status: On July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a rezoning from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which_ evaluafed
environmental impacts associated with residential development.
Situation
On July 6; 2004, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning from
Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential for the subject property. During this
I ublic hearing the Council gave clear direction to the applicant to design an "attached" multi-
family residential project consistent with the site's High-Density Residential land use
designation. Council's direction followed recently approved projects at 1771 Johnson Avenue
and 680 Foothill.131vd. that included tall detached units on either side of common driveways in
multi-family residential zones that resulted in less than satisfactory designs. Included in the
meeting minutes, the motion to approve the project was preceded by the following statement:
"Council recommended that staff share with the Planning Commission and ARC that any project
design for this particular property should be apartment style (attached) structures rather than
separate structures"(Attachment 3).
G -/
r r
Council Agenda Report-ARC 180-04
July 19,2005
Page 2
On September 23, 2004, the City received an application for Architectural Review that included
seven "detached" residential units for site development. Staff encouraged the applicant to revise
the plan per the Council's direction. The ARC reviewed this application at their March 14`h,
June 6`h & June 20`h meetings. The Architectural Review Agenda Reports for the previous
meetings (March 14`h &June 6`h) recommended that the proposed site plan showing all proposed
units in individual buildings be redesigned to be consistent with Council's direction and General
Plan policy to include at least some of the units in attached structures (Attachments 4 & 5).
However, at their June 6, 2005 meeting, the ARC drafted preliminary findings to support the
project and continued action to June 20, 2005 with direction to staff to return with a
"recommendation for approval of the project with the seven detached units (Attachment 6). On
June 20, 2005 the ARC approved the project as submitted with all of the units in detached
buildings;based on findings and subject to conditions and Code requirements(Attachment 7).
Since Council provided specific design direction to the applicant for future site development to
be apartment style structures rather than separate structures; and detached housing is not the
primary intent of the High-Density Residential Land Use Designation; the City Administrative
Officer (CAO) has referred ARC's land use decision, which has citywide implications, to the
Council for review. The Council needs to decide whether the ARC approved site planning
strategy to include all of the units in detached buildings is appropriate on a site designated for
High-Density Residential development,
Site Description
See the March 150 ARC report (Attachment 4).
Pmiect Description
See the June 6`h ARC report (Attachment 5).
General-Plan
The site is designated as "High-Density Residential" on the General Plan Land Use Element
(LUE) map. A key policy staff has identified in determining project conformity with the General
Plan is LUE Policy 2.4.8, which states;."High-Density Residential development should be
primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas
and very compact private outdoor spaces." Staffhas provided detailed analyses as to whether
the proposed site design com_plies with.this policy in the March 14`h and June 6`h ARC reports
(Attachments 4 &5).
As shown in the image below, all proposed units are in separate structures. As a result, the
project does not maximize the site density (7 units provided, 9 units allowed) afforded by the
recently approved rezoning and requires setback exceptions along Southwood Drive. In addition,
the site is constrained by two street frontages and a utility easement that limits the buildable site
Council Agenda Report—AR 0-04
July 19,2005
Page 3 ----area. By attaching the units, additional area could be afforded to building density, compliant
setbacks, landscaping, parking
and recreational areas. The City
has a very limited supply of R-4 LaurelLane
it
zoned land (approximately 69
J I
acres, 0 currently vacant
excluding the subject site). 7
Attached development
(common wall) fosters S
apartment style (for rent) units 0
rather than individual t U t
h
ownerships, which provides an
� a,.
important housing tenure for 0r Fly
7-1-1-r!7
residents consistent with ij d
General Plan Housing Element
Goal 5.1. 1 rPHI MN
It
V
The ARC found the project
'J
consistent with the General.Plan Zip
based on the following finding:
- ---------
"The project is consistent with
the City's General Plan in that
there is no mandate that
structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a maximum unit size or minimum density
requirement.11 In considering this appeal the Council will want to review this finding and
determine whether it satisfies the intent of Policy 2.4.8 of the General Plan, which is to primarily
provide for attached dwellings in the High-Density Residential land use designation. This is a
matter of policy interpretation, which is the Council's purview. The Council's interpretation will
be a basis for staff recommendations in the future. Thus, while the policy in question may allow
for other interpretations, the City will continue to apply it as it is interpreted by the Council, until
the policy is clarified with more precise wording.
Zoning Regulations
The purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to implement the General Plan through land use
regulations. The property is zoned R-4, which is the most intensive residential zoning within the
City. The purposes of the R-4 district are to: "provide housing opportunities for smaller
households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group
housing." As discussed in further detail in staff's March 15th ARC report (Attachment 5); the
proposed detached units in the City's most intensive multi-family zone do not fulfill the
development objectives of the R-4 district. However, there are no established standards that
mandate structures in the R-4 zone be attached.
Council Agenda Report-AR 0-04
July 19,2005
Page 4
Architectural-Review Commission Action
On June 20, 2005, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously voted to grant final
approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and Code requirements
(Attachment 7). The project had been to the ARC on two prior occasions and involved over four
hours of discussion. The central issue had been whether the submitted site plan showing seven
detached residential units could be found consistent with General Plan LUE Policy 2.4.8.
Ultimately a majority of the ARC found that the proposed design could be found consistent with
the General Plan. The project had been continued from the June 6U' meeting with specific
direction to return to the ARC for a recommendation for approval, based on the refinement of
draft findings that the ARC had provided. Minutes from the March 10, June 6`s and June 20th
ARC meetings are attached for reference (Attachments 8, 9 & 10).
Anneal Filed
On June 23, 2005, Ken Hampian, CAO, filed an appeal of the ARC's action, which was
accompanied by a letter to the applicant explaining the background for the appeal (Attachment
11).. The basis for the appeal includes: Council's less than satisfactory experience in reviewing
similar proposals at 1771 Johnson Avenue and 680 Foothill Blvd. that included tall detached
units on either side of common driveways in multi-family residential zones; Council's specific
design direction to the applicant for future site development to be apartment style structures
rather than separate structures; and that detached housing is not the primary intent of the.High-
Density Residential Land Use Designation. Because Council provided direction to the applicant
at a formal meeting, which is included in the minutes from June 1, 2004, the CAO has a
professional responsibility to refer ARC's land use decision, which has citywide implications, to
the Council for review.
Conclusion
The Council needs to provide an interpretation of General Plan Policy 2.4.8 in the context of the
ARC decision to allow all units in detached buildings on a site designated for High-Density
Residential development. If.the Council.upholds the ARC's approval, the Council may also
consider an amendment to te General Plan that allows all units developed within the High-
Density Residential land use designation to be located in separate structures. If the Council
denies the project, or requires that at least some of the units be attached, the Council may also
consider amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to clarify that either all or at
least some units in R-4 developments be included in attached buildings.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Whether the site development
provides for attached vs. detached.residential units, similar impacts on City resources will occur.
Council Agenda Report—AR 0-04
July 19,2005
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1 The Council may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. As a follow-
up action; the Council may consider amendments to the General Plan and Zoning
Regulations to mandate that all units in R-4 developments be 'included in attached
buildings.
2. The Council may decide that at least some of the residences in a High=Density Re_sidential.
development must be attached, but not all of them, and uphold the appeal with direction
that the proposed project be redesigned to comply with this interpretation of LUE Policy
2.4:8.
3. The Council may approve the project with a condition that at least some of the units be
included in attached Buildings. Council should specify a project ratio of attached vs.
detached units.
4. The.Council may uphold ARC's approval of the project, based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements, As a follow-up action, the Council may consider an
amendment to the General Plan that allows all units developed within the High-Density
Residential land use designation to be located in separate structures.
5. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff and the appellants.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale project plans
3. Minutes from the June 1, 2004, Council meeting
4: Staff report from the March 1.4; 2005, ARC meeting
5. Staff report-from the June 6, 2005,ARC meeting
6. ARC follow-up letter dated June 13, 2005
7. ARC follow-up letter dated June 23, 2005
8. Minutes from the March 14, 2005 ARC meeting
9. Minutes from the June 6, 2005 ARC meeting
10. Draft minutes from the June 20, 2005 ARC meeting
11. Appeal letter from Ken Hampian, CAO, dated June 23,2005
12. ARC follow-up letter dated March 15, 2005
13. Staff report from the June 20, 2005, ARC meeting.
14. Draft Resolution"A" to uphold the ARC's project approval
15. Draft Resolution `B" to deny the proposed project
Enclosed: full-size project plans
GAtcorey\CCWRC 180-04(Nagy)\ARC 180-04 cc tpt.doc
i
s �
��� IYII I /' ■
� � N1
Attachment 2
�s`rry`SM-1a rs a-i t _ a
g ,per a
•
fill;iII-OILI
{9
y$
4
. € Ci ' fiNay3 ;
4it
LLJ' >=
!s/ aqs
w Q piY /p9Q p py p qe9 p old
QJ ayQ
-_ ® 9b Z i45 s 38 iS J: b8 i } d� I
�co
JLJ
LUCno
a
men
7 { J
Attachment 2
.�m�v9'•vrv`�a•as �l ' , � a �
i 060A
Ir Ba
M.MA[Fi5
�
11 L
FT
_ � ^1 '—� ^; •—1 •'� ,fix.--1 x-1'1 °'
1 1 1 -fl e 1 4 11 TI { lflli I I 1 11.>
t a
1�
M 1 -
�i `� o
tiW
\`\ yi^`\ i F I v l i i ❑ f l 1 1 I x ❑ I^ l '
it i r'I 1 ; 1 '� ; ❑ 1 1 1 r'I � �, I. 1 i I! 1' r
❑ 1 is'ln_J •..w 9 sul
v it J` i-�v��y`'° ' ❑ , ���1 �.? n I❑J
El
13
LA
a 1 y
s.,
Y 11
I
1
I
I
ErMPJi
��w•r r�,cnwT
"Q
Attachment 2
fef 9fV/P`s7}nd'Q1S 0� $ •}��i o $ , € N .
15,
R
1 1 i I i 1
1
1 1 • �
1 /
I
3 }
e, ♦ , a Zi
ok
I ° 1 // u
il,
� I o i i °\Il.i �[[l 1 I• eeei "i e66�ilt�; ° '" I .� I' ° 1-1 1 `
i G - 1 �' .'I •6 { I. •8 '. 1 8, 1. .�� \ 1 �I`J' :�1�1 '1 �. �
I 1
I
}
\
1 I\ IN I IN I I I I I V. I i it 1 1 114 1 1 1111 1 1 1\- 1 1
M 1 �
3
17,
LJ
\\ / 1 ` i `J j'1 I ❑ �� �. j l/ I 1 'i III fl It Yi ; �
l i i♦�r.� E ❑ 1'�i=1 1 J :�JI:_J;? n sal v vI
\`\ I � Y �1� ❑ s 1 {�{ \ .'Ii `II`Qp[Frj'i, _W\ '
\\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\
\ \\ It
1 %\\ \ \ \\
E \B IR \IR \� IR \8 \! 8
�s
9 @ EP£EE
� -9
Attachment 2
s_amy�ossv9`•rrv'sr�nd'a�rs dei �•��� � _ ,, �
a
Y Y
ama=m..
dl
3
311 it
es
3 Y -;
No OEM
Hs
.s
�e A:�g
W �E€ i EPN;?kh.`..� =firs. Idl�'li!`E
+R`x
ir
I
lu
I
1
I
0
!. 3i it ! 1 3
cc
W
_ lek
1 y 1 q 1 •
ui
Att cmer t 2
NMI
a F°•�a g _ � � a� � a � e
1;1 ;
` ;_
,-
r zz-
r
r _
c
2— -
OY
- � A
a
r �
r
,
y
a-
%" ti
Attachment 2
$I ( i n 66q R
I
}{ w
Ixt
a '
�X
L
L4
�smas lI 3
I a+nvm j .
♦M
O I
Et
y
n
i
0 �
A cement 2
' +�t��f'9`'Pri''stp+d•U uaa_atS E ► ,� g � _ ^
Jon roe
�o all 0
0 Lft
EE
_ D
0
❑ --
❑❑
_ 6 �
❑❑❑
❑ aED LLLL
fall 'A, 41
� � 000000000000
�Att cement 2
cm
10.
a
® EE
aEI� EE ED
HUM
-- - - ® o
FE
rT—
_ - ® ❑ o
M.
®o ®OHIO
- - a
000000000000
1 �
/ I�'�Illull��a�II III�IIIIII� II ��rlii� �� ��,,.... �.I 1��I'llz•���IIII�I�I�II�III�I�� ;u , Iq.. pl pl�lll�l���lll ,�� „
VIII II I II IIIIII! III ,� I�4ldlblll�l,,. � II, ���� J�III„„ � ,
III hll II [�
Il�aul',�I �. III .■■ lil ■� ,,•,y,,�,
��� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■E .
�' ME Ms.
ME 00 ME 11111P.171: F
ED
Igo all
eq � 3 � amu.., 1 :i■n � �■i1� ■u:
iL
�iiiiii■■■iiiiiiiiiiiiiii■■■iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
• ■■■■■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
'� 3a;' S■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
( {r
owl
NMI
oil
al
01
0.; ®;i ;r y• ee
O� un
1■n � 4
1■■1 ■■B�p ■®■N ilii ;u;.sib a■1! '” �.��� VA `j i3wes♦i
t/S,.( 1■�11 \SCI
WE I 1 'IINr��■11■ �� 1 �I/a`�►\■1�I�,��
•s.I � 1■SII /o�yi■ f.1 iswe VIIIIII.- .� �'I%
IN
1 /
yid=-`_ '��'�I�► �'` % ® 'I,� IIIIIII ® •
Attachment 3
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday,June 1,2004,5:45 p.m.
Nmaorenceme.Oasis Associates,representing Coast BMW/Nissan,presented a brief
overvle lie sculpture and the desire of the applicant She also distributed a letter from
Catherinerton,San Luis Obispo Arts Council,showing their support(see letter on
file in the City Cie Offlce).
Jim Jacobson,artist,disco -_ the details of the art work and the merits In maldng it
acaessibld to pedestrian traffic
Mavor Romero opened the public hearin- .
Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo,spoke In support CAO recommendation. He voiced
conoenh regarding vandalism it the art work was to be p on the comer.
Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Moved by Mulholiand)Schwartz to adopt Resolution No. Series
upholding the aPPeal,and upholding the Art Jury's recommendation tdilllftw the
public art at the proposed location in front of the building subject to finding.
conditions;notion carried 5:0.
9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL TO HiGH DENSITY:RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY AT 1231 LAUREL
LANE(GP/R/ER 121-03).
Deputy Director Community Development Whlsenand explained that this General Plan
amendment was the first in a series and that H Council approved this recommendation In
concept,all General Plan amendments would be brought back on 7/604 for final passage.
Associate Planner Corey presented the staff report. '
This Woodle.Pults&Associates and Senior Architect for the project,answered questions
Wm the Council.
Mayor Romero opened the public hearing.
Andrew Carter.San Luis Obispo,voiced support for the project
Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.
Council recommended that staff share with the Planning Commission and the ARC that any
project design for this particular property should be apartment style structures rather than
separate structures.
ACTION: Moved by Settfa/Mulhoiland to adopt Resolution No.9571 (2004 Swiss)
conceptually approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
(ER 1210 and amendrnefit to the City's Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map
designations tram Neighborhood Commercial(C-N)to High Density Residential(R-
4),which directs staff to return the project to the Council at the July 6,2004 regular
meeting,to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project;motion carried
5A.
Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM#2
BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(78177169) MEETING DATE: March 14, 2005
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARC 180-04
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: Review of a 7-unit residential development located on the northeast comer of
Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive in the R-4 zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date.uncertain with direction regarding changes to the overall design of
the project to be consistent with City policy and standards.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning from
Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential for the subject property. During this
public hearing the Council gave clear direction to the applicant to design an "attached" multi-
family residential project consistent with the site's High-Density Residential land use
designation. The applicant is now proposing to construct seven "detached" residential units
inconsistent with both Council direction and General Plan policy. The ARC needs to decide
whether the proposed site planning strategy to include individual buildings is appropriate on a
site designated for high-density residential development.
Data.Summary
Address: 1231 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative:Steven D. Pults &Associates
Zoning: R4(High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: On July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a rezoning from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated
environmental impacts associated with residential development._
Site Description
The project site consists of approximately 16,545 square feet located on the northeast comer of
Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The site is vacant with a.less than 5% slope. The project area
is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community-serving uses in
�7
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Attachment 4
Page 2
the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single-family residences, apartments,
condominiums, a senior-care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station,
Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services. Zoning
surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1).
Project Description
The applicant is = �rertMe== €j
proposing to construct
seven detached, two- /
bedroom dwelling units ?I,
on either side of a 20- 11h'
foot wide driveway fir/ t
located off Southwood ;I u ' ❑ `
Drive. Two separate F1 - ❑ r
building designs areII
SI I I 1 I I I I I
being proposed:
Building A is
ak__: t__ �t__- �_-
� i
approximately 1,521 u —
square feet and includes
3-levels with 2- o
bedrooms and a loft, 2- ® o
car garage, 77 square- :....._ - —; ,q-
foot deck and private I r
front yard areas that face t__:
Laurel Lane; Building B e
is approximately 1,455 II
square feet and also I� 3 - '
includes 3-levels with 2-
bedrooms and a loft, 2- -
tu'MYw r4'Y I
car garage, three decks '
totaling 250 square feet
and private rear yard areas. Other components of the project include three guest parking spaces,
five short-term bicycle parking spaces and a small common outdoor use area with picnic tables
and a barbeque at the northeast comer of the site.
EVALUATION
General Plan
The project site is designated as "High-Density Residential' in the General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) map. The General Plan contains several policies that apply to the project.
Those policies are listed below in bold print and staff s analysis follows in italics.
1. General Plan LUE Policy 2.4.8 states: "High-Density Residential development should
be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor
Z17-
67
./Z6r
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane) Attachment 4
Page 3
areas and very compact private outdoor spaces."
Staffs Analysis: As previously mentioned, the City Council provided clear direction to the
applicant to design an "attached" residential development project at the site consistent with this
policy. As shown on project plans (Attachment 2, sheet AC-1.1) the site design provides for
detached dwellings, a very small common use area and extensive decking and private outdoor
yards. As a result, the project does not maximize the site density (7 units provided, 9 units
allowed) afforded by the recently approved rezoning and requires setback exceptions along
Southwood Drive. Staff recommends redesigning the project to include some attached buildings,
maximize site density, and set back buildings along Southwood Drive to comply with Zoning
Regulation requirements.
2. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.12.A states: "Residential projects should provide privacy
for occupants and neighbors of the project"
Staffs Analysis: Based on
existing development to the
north and east of the site,
the project is not likely to
create significant privacy
and overlook impacts on
adjacent properties.
However, due to the site
layout providing driveway
access down the center of
the site, which includes units
on either side directly facing
each other with decks, the
proposed floor plans will
impact privacy for
occupants of the project.
This concern is apparent by
reviewing the east elevation
for Building A (sheet A-2.1) and west elevation for Building B (sheet A-2.2). These building
elevations will face each other with little offset and include decks at roughly the same height and
location that provide for direct and unobstructed views into the adjoining units. As previously
mentioned, Building A includes one deck (shown above interior to the project) and Building B
includes three decks (one interior and two facing east). In order to increase privacy for
Building A's only deck and the likelihood of it being utilized, staff recommends further offsetting
the buildings and removing Building B's west facing deck, which has an odd shape and is only
30 square feet in area.
Zoning Regulations
The property is zoned R-4, which is the most intensive residential zoning within the City. The
purposes of the R-4 district are to: "provide housing opportunities for smaller households
G 4
Attachment 4
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 4
desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. It is
further intended to allow for concentrations of housing close to concentrations of
employment and college enrollment, in areas largely committed to high-density residential
development2l
Staff Analysis: The project proposes 1,500 square- oot three-story; 2-bedroom, 2-3 bath units
with lofts, a very small common use area and extensive decking and private outdoor yards that
do not fit the description of "smaller households" with "little private open space". The
proposed detached units in the City's most intensive multi family zone are not consistent with
the objectives of the R-4 district. In addition, the applicant is requesting a street yard setback
exception from 15 feet to 10 feet along Southwood Drive. Staff does not support this request
because the vacant site could be redesigned with attached units, consistent with the General
Plan, to easily comply with this standard. In addition, a lesser setback would be inconsistent
with the setback pattern established in the immediate neighborhood along this section of
Southwood Drive.
Community Design Guidelines
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3 provides specific guidance for infill development. "
The ARC should utilize this chapter to evaluate the project. The guidelines of importance for
this evaluation are listed below in bold print and staffs analysis follows in italics:
1. 5.3.A (General Principles). Be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall
character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is
crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the
neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and
bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale
buildings.
2. 5.3.0 (Visual Impacts from Building Height). The height of infill projects should be
consistent with surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is desired,an
fill
instructure should set back upper floors from the edge of the fust story to reduce
impacts on adjacent smaller homes,and to protect solar access.
Stalf_s Analvsisr The maximum building height allowed in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. The applicant
is proposing three-story structures with building heights ranging from 32 to 34 feet tall.
Although the overall heights of the buildings comply with Zoning Regulation standards, they will
be approximately 10-12 feet taller than the surrounding two-story developments. Based on this
information, staff recommends reducing the overall height of the structures to property "blend"
the project into the existing neighborhood. This may be accomplished by reducing interior
ceiling heights andlor modifying roof forms.
3. 53.B (Building Design). An infill residential structure should incorporate the
traditional architectural characteristics of existing. houses in the neighborhood,
including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch,
ornamentation and other details.
as
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane) .. Attachment 4
Page 5
4. 5.3.E (Exterior Finish Materials). The thoughtful selection of building materials can
enhance desired neighborhood qualities .such as compatibility, continuity, and
harmony. The design of infill residential structures should incorporate an appropriate
mixture of the predominant materials found in the neighborhood.
5. 53.F (Exterior Colors). Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider
the colors of existing houses in the neighborhood,to maintain compatibility.
Sta s Analysis: The surrounding neighborhood includes public facility, service, retail and
residential uses that reflect a variety of architectural styles, colors and building materials. The
proposed buildings include red, green and yellow smooth trowel plaster and corrugated metal
siding, aluminum storefront and mill finish windows and standing seam metal roofing.
Architectural embellishment include painted metal beam tails and struts, painted metal railings
and painted metal trellis's with stained concrete columns. The modern architectural style
proposed for the project is new for the neighborhood. Although no single architectural style is
dominant, the proposed colors and materials appear out of character with adjacent buildings..
In addition, the proposed metal siding and roofing are found no where else in the neighborhood.
Overall, the designs of the buildings create visual interest and could be found compatible with
surrounding development provided the proposed color combinations and materials (metal) are
modified. A color and.materials board along with 3D images from various vantage points will
be available for review at the ARC meeting.
Landscaping
Landscaping is proposed adjacent to the dwelling units and along the perimeter of the site. The
rear yard areas of units 4-7, located along the easterly property line, are to be landscaped by
individual "owners" of the proposed units. Landscaping will consist of groundcovers, various
low-growing flowering plants, a mix of shrubs and vines, and a variety of broadleaf/evergreen
trees (Queen Palm,Brisbane Box), and deciduous trees (European White Birch,Chinese Pistache
and Bradford Pear). The landscaping plan contains a variety of plant materials of different forms
and sizes to create an interesting presentation. The proposed location and plant species are
shown on the conceptual landscape plan, which is provided in the project plans (sheet L=1).
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The recently adopted General Plan Housing Element requires projects with five (5) or more
residential units to comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements. The proposed
project includes seven (7) dwelling units and will need to either build 3% low or 5% moderate
income Affordable Dwelling Units, but not less than one (1) per project or pay an in-lieu fee
equal to 5% of the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued. The
applicant has submitted an Inclusionary Housing proposal requesting to pay the in-lieu fee,
which has been reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Standards
require that the project fulfill its Inclusionary Housing obligation prior to occupancy of the
dwelling units.
?1s
Attachment 4
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
I. Grant approval of the project, based on findings and conditions. Staff does not recommend this
alternative given the range of significant site planning_ and building design issues outlined in the
agenda report.
2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This item was distributed to the Public Works, Fire, Building and Utilities Departments, and
comments received will be included as project conditions and code requirements where
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with the following direction regarding changes to the
overall design of the project to be consistent with City policies and standards:
1. Redesign the project to include attached units.
2. To the extent possible, redesign project to maximize the site density afforded by the
recently approved R-4 rezone.
3. Set back buildings 15 feet from the property line along Southwood Drive to comply with
Zoning Regulation requirements.
4. Further offset building footprints and remove Building B's west facing deck to reduce
overlook and increase privacy for occupants of the project.
5. Reduce the overall height of the buildings. This may be accomplished by reducing
interior ceiling heights and/or modifying roof forms.
6. Modify the proposed color combinations and building materials (metal) to blend with the
surrounding neighborhood.
7. The ARC should provide additional direction as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS
Z/to
-2Z
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 2,
BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) MEETING DATE:June 6, 2005
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner/ 4,TR
FILE NUMBER: ARC 180-04
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: Review of a 7-unit residential development located on the northeast corner of
Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive in the R-4 zone.
SUMMARY RE COMMENDA TION
Deny the request to construct a 7-unit, detached, residential development in the R-4 zone based
on findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On July.6, 2004, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning from
Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential for the subject property. During this
public hearing the Council gave clear direction to the applicant to design an."attached" multi-
family residential project consistent with the site's High-Density Residential land use
designation. Included in the meeting minutes, the motion to approve the project was preceded
by the following statement: "Council recommended that staff share with the Planning
Commission and ARC that any project design for this particular property should be apartment
style structures rather than separate,structures"(Attachment 3).
On March 14, 2005, the ARC reviewed the subject application and continued consideration of
the project with direction (Attachment 4). The staff report and presentation for this hearing
recommended that the proposed site planning strategy to include individual buildings be
redesigned to be consistent with Council's direction and General Plan policy (Attachments 5).
However, the ARC did not include direction to include attached buildings with multiple units in
their recommendation to the applicant or provide staff with any specific justification as to how
the project is consistent with the General Plan.
General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The ARC must make a
finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's
Zoning Regulations, (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be
interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. Revised plans have been
submitted in response to ARC direction, but the site plan still.shows seven detached buildings
for proposed units, which is inconsistent with a key General Plan policy.
Attachment 5
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1231 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative: Steven D..Pults & Associates
Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: On July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a rezoning from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated
environmental impacts associated with residential development.
Site Description
See the March 15`h ARC report (Attachment 5).
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to
construct seven detached, two- Laurel Lane Ei
bedroom dwelling units on
either side of a 20-foot wide
driveway located off
Southwood Drive. Two {
separate building designs are l� '
being proposed: Building A is g �' r
approximately 1,521 square ° -
feet and includes 3-levels with I t
2-bedrooms and a loft, 2-car
garage, 77 square-foot decki
and front yard areas that face II d l'r. `f
Laurel Lane; Building_ B is l -
approximately 1,455 square r ® a
feet and also includes 3-levels I V. 40
with 2-bedrooms and a loft, 2-
car garage, two decks totaling i
220 square feet and private I�
rear yard areas. Other
components of the project - - -- ----------—
--------- -_- -- -------- - - -- ------ ----- --
include three guest parking L "I - ^-'
spaces, five short-term bicycle parking spaces and a small common outdoor use area with picnic
tables and.a barbeque at the northeast comer of the site.
Previous ARC Direction
The ARC reviewed this application at their March 14, 2005 meeting and continued consideration
of the project with direction. The ARC's direction is listed below in bold print and staff's
2/2,
��y
Attachment 5
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 3
analysis follows in italics.
1. Remove Building B's west-facing usable deck area and replace it with an architectural
embellishment that provides the visual appearance of a deck.
Staff's Analysis: The west facing deck.on Building B has been removed and replaced with a
planter area" defined by a low wood railing with copper tubing consistent with the materials
used for other usable decks.. Aesthetically this change is acceptable, but functionally it raises
issues. The ARC should discuss how the spaces will be accessed and maintained as a planter
area now that the doors have been replaced with windows.
2. Explore the reduction of the overall height of the buildings.
Stas Analysis: Based on the revised building elevations, the heights of the structures remain
unchanged It appears that there has been no attempt to lower the overall height of the
buildings, which are approximately 10-12 feet taller than the. surrounding two-story
developments, to make the new project more compatible with the existing neighborhood.
3. Modify the proposed color combinations and building materials to blend with the
_.surrounding neighborhood and soften the"high tech"appearance of the design.
StaTs.Analysis: The proposed building colors include softer combinations that seem to work
well with the unique building designs. The building materials have been modified by replacing
metal with wood for the roof rafter ends and deck posts and railings. In addition, the proposed
metal siding has been replaced with wood to give the structures a warmer and softer
appearance. One architectural detail that was removed from the design is the trellis featuresfor
Building A along Laurel Lane. These trellises provided the buildings with a sense of street
presence and visual interest, as well as needed architectural relief for the 23 foot tall wall.
planes that face the street. In staff's opinion, these trellises should be reincorporated into the
project.
4. Modify the handrails to provide a less metropolitan appearance.
Staffs Analysis: As previously mentioned, the steel handrails and cable dividers have been
replaced with wooden posts and copper railings.
5. Explore options to the walls along Laurel Lane and define area and functionality of
outdoor spaces.
Staffs Analysis: The site walls along Laurel Lane have been modified to provide a more linear
design and the color has been changed to grey. These revised walls appear to detract from the
project's overall appearance, as evident in the. 3D renderings provided by the applicant
(available at meeting). In addition, the applicant.has not provided any additional information
on the intended use of the outdoor spaces or area(s) of improvement. As a result, staff remains
unclear as to the purpose of the walls and how the outdoor spaces will function. If private
outdoor yards along Laurel Lane for adjacent units are desired, then other alternatives remain
2/3
6-as
Attachment 5
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 4
available. From staffs view, replacing the walls with an earthen berm and/or landscape
screening could significantly improve the appearance of the project. .
EVALUATION
General Plan
As discussed in further detail in staff's March 18th ARC report (Attachment 5), the project is not
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element. (LUE) Policy 2.4.8: This policy states: "High-
Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story
buildings, with common outdoor areas and very" compact private outdoor spaces." As mentioned
above, any policy interpretation that may exist was clarified when Council provided direction on
the project design to include attached units for subsequent site development. Essentially, the
"should" contained in this Policy was clarified to be a "shall". As shown on the revised project
plans (Attachment 2, sheet AC-1.1) the site design still provides for detached dwellings, a very
small common use area and extensive decking and private outdoor yards, which are clearly
inconsistent with this policy. Although the ARC was supportive of the unique design and
architectural quality of the project with its earlier review, the ARC must still make a finding of
consistency with the General Plan in order to approve the project. Staff is certain that the project
architect will be able to present the ARC with and equally_ unique "attached style" design
consistent with the General Plan.. Based on project plans and Council direction, staff does not
believe that the Commission can make this critical finding.
Zonina Regulations
As discussed in further detail in staff's'March 15th ARC report (Attachment 5), the proposed
detached units in the City's most intensive multi-family zone are not consistent with the
objectives of the R-4 district.
Future Subdivision
Based on information submitted with the planning application, the applicant's goal for the
project is to provide for individual unit ownerships, as opposed to rental housing. However,
staff has not received a subdivision application for the project to make a consistency
determination with the Subdivision Regulations.. Based on a very preliminary review, the
project does not appear to meet the City's Residential Condominium Development Standards:.
The ARC should be aware that the proposed site design has been dictated by a future subdivision
proposal that may not meet City standards..
On May 4, 2005, staff received a letter from the applicant's representative describing liability
issues regarding air-space condominiums (Attachment 6). Staff recognizes that homebuilders
have had difficulty receiving insurance coverage ,for air=space condominiums in the past.
However, the situation is getting better. Senate Bill 800 has addressed some of the risks
developers faced with air-space condominium construction. As with other Senate Bills (i.e...
density bonus law) changes are already in the works to improve and clarify some of this bill's
initial shortcomings.
Z/�
Attachment 5
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 5
This evolving change in the insurance industry is being driven by a real estate market with
record prices, strong demand, and limited supply: Many cities in California, including San Luis
Obispo, encourage higher density projects on infill sites. Table 2-A of the Housing Element
embodies this concept of compact developments and smaller units. An aging population and
increasing numbers of hopeful first-time buyers with less upfront capital are demanding a
smaller, more affordable product. This demand is responsible for the current boom in air-space
condominium construction.
According to recent reports from the Construction Building Industry Association, California
should surpass 200,000 new residential units for the second year in a row with an increasing
number of air-space condominiums. John Laing Homes, one of the State's largest homebuilders,
has just formed a new division of the company to focus on condominium development. In an
article in the L.A Daily News April 29, 2005, entitled"Condo Market Surges in CA", Ray Pearl.,
Executive Director of the Southern California Building Association notes the change in
development climate, "the 'biggest impediment to condo construction has been the inability to
get insurance." Noting the recent State legislation, he goes on to say, "the environment has
gotten friendlier. Builders are taking a second look at condominiums." The article reviews
hundreds of new condominium units planned for Southern California. -
This surge is evident in San Luis Obispo, as well. In the last two years; the City has approved
attached condominium projects on Walnut, Rockview, Augusta, Johnson and Broad Street.
Applications for 265 condominium conversions have been received this year alone. In addition
to the recently submitted Copelands Chinatown project, several downtown air-space
condominium projects are in the planning stages. The trend is real and has staying power = the
land use and housing advantages of condominiums far outweigh the lingering difficulties of
obtaining insurance.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant approval of the project, based on findings and conditions. Staff does not recommend this
alternative given the project's inconsistency with the General.Plan,.as discussed above.
2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request_ to construct a 7-unit, detached, residential development in the R-4 zone based
on the following findings:
1. The project is not consistent with General Plan Policy 2.4.8, as clarified by Council, because
the site design provides exclusively for detached dwellings, a very small common use area
and extensive decking and private outdoor yards.
Attachment 5
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane)
Page 6
2. The project is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the R4 zoning district, which is
to provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space,
because the project proposes 1,500 square-foot three-story, 2-bedroom; 2-3 bath units with
lofts, a very small common use area and extensive decking and private outdoor yards..
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 6: Letter from the applicant's representative dated May 4, 2005
CP
G:tcorcy\ARC\AR0ARC 180-04 Nagy\ARC 180-04 rpt(6.6).doc
21b
A'tachment 5
s 6At
May 49 2005
[ton Whisenand
Depoty Community Development Director
De"velop"ment Review
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: Condominiums
Dear Ron:
After several discussions with City sta>3f; it seems there is a misconception that construction
industry liability problems,regard— condonilpiu�s,are no longer an issue. Nothing could be
finther,from the truth. The liability for Architects and Contractors is as had as it has ever
been.
The following is a quote from the California ATA, in March 2005: "ResidoWdl construction
defect,titiganotr stops most archilects from des(phrg condaminhrms. rnsurers and risk
iadvaors regularly advise amhdeers not to design condominfunu, {f they aro, they could lose
their hKiwm ce ooverrige. Tf6 Pea*is:design a OWU6, ger sgaed
Attached is it tetter from our insurance company that very clearly outlines the eurrent
situation Including
recent legislation thatwas supposed to fix the problem.
With the City's push to provide more housing, especially attached *-space type
condominiums, are are faced with some difficult choices. We can do that type of project with
the understanding that we will be sued within the ten year time limit, ue can try and design a
project that tries to limit the liability, usually involving separate detached units, or we can
turn down the work. _
We do not bgmd the City to stop pushing for housing and in fact we agree with the concept.
Our goal has beento try and fmd alternatives to air-space type designs while not loosing the
density evoryone is looking for:
I hope this iufnamation is helpful. If you have any guest o or want to discuss this issue
further.please give me a can.
Pups,A1JL
Attach: DRA Letter
Mrbitectrere.Ptd g t?r
343013romd:Ah�ert-Srdie�lAS __
San is&ou p0,CA JX01
(BOS)591�D9
AFQs(805)5414371
212-
Ihni+•st'n_,+I+,n .\ :4rr+l+iulw
*tachment 5
1rrA1f(rfllrr{ilil�rMISF
April 29,2005
W. Steve Putts
Steven D.Putts AIA.&Associates
3450 Broad St., Suite 106 Tar,Sulh rft R41"Ave
Sari Luis Obispo,CA 93401 5"iw�CA 911m
Tel MR_64SM
Re: SB 800/Condomiiniums Aix �ow..+xn4
. - waiM+rla7ra�h.r.arar
Dear Steve!
As you know,Dealey,Renton&Associates specializes in insurance for Architects and
.Engineers and currently itzsnres over 3,000 Seas statewide. Condominiums and other
multi-family residential has been a popular topic for the last several years. Per our
recent discussion about SB 8080 the impact of this legislation on design profi=ional's
has yet to be deteffii=4
In 2002.withoutcinrasive committee heating-and.amendments.the legislature forced
through S8 800 on the last dayof its session. It is unclear if=y member of the
legislature read the bill through and improbable that they could have understood it. SB
800 is a lengthy;complex,piece of legislation that leaves considerable room for
interpretation by the courts and many provisions are imprecise.The exceptions created
within the statute for defect actions brought by homeowners"to enf w a contract or
express contractual provision, or any action for fraud,personal bdwy or violation of a
statute"have the potential to undeanine.the effectiveness of the new statute. Also, SB
800 sets forth a lengthy,detailed audcumbersome procedure that must be followed
before an action is filed against any party that allegedly contributed to the claimed
defects. The bended of this procedure falls largely on the builder,and the time periods
are strictly construed. In my experience,many builders are not aware of what thi c
procedures are.
SB 800 purports to addrew the relucta nce of the insura:u a hidustty to provide liability
insurance to Califomia developers and condominium builders sad their design
professionals, contractors,and subcomractors. Itis unclear if representatives of the
insurance industry participated in negotiating the provisions of SB 800: The reality is
that SB 800 is extremely harmful to the interests of liabiliV insurers and slay
cip;�,it
061dadd rn
PA:Wro du CA
SmILD Arm CA
a(M1�739
An lint`.Ca"nr
zlZS
-30
achment 5
I,Vir. Steve Pults
Steven D.Pults AIA &Associates
May 4, 2445
Page 2
discourage them from writing business in California.Plaintiffs by artful pleading may
nullify most of the substantive benefits that SB 800 would extend to defendants.
Further,SB 800 may radically increase.dw complexity of construction detect litigation
and accordingly increase the cost of providing a defense.
Even with the perceived benefit of SB 800 to developers, builders and design
professionals, condos are still problematic because:
• Condominium projects are often highly leveraged financially.
• Condominium buyers are often unsophisticated and many buyers have never
owned a bait in a shared multi-family community before.They become part of a
homeowner association in charge of upkeep and maintenance who are not eager
to pay for the full range of upkeep services needed to maintain the shared
exteriors,roofs,utilities and common grounds.
• Developers are often more interested in saving dollars than building high quality
prof ects and iivquendy scrimp on materials and forego what they deem
"optional"design.services,such as construction observation.
• Attorneys often actively solicit homeowner associations as potential clients and
often urge these Associations to provide a very critical-review of the complex in
a search to find defects with their buildings and grounds.If the developci
scrimped on quality, it probably won't take.long to find a reason to file a
demand:
• Once a complaint or lawsuit is filed,the developer may be nowhere to be found.
Many developers set up an LLC to build and sell a single project. Once the last
unit sells,the corporation dissolves. Similarly,if the low-bid contractor hired to
construct the condo project has dissolved,gone bankrupt or has otherwise
disappeared once the project is completed,the only deep pockets remaining are
those of the design team.
• In California,currently most Contractors and subcontractors cannot obtain
General Liability coverage for multiunit residential projects. A few developers
have purchased`wrap-up"policies to provide this coverage,but because this
type ofpolicy is extremely expensive,it is highly likely that many projects are
being built by uninsuredconstruction toam& Unfortunately,this makes the
insured design team a bigger target.
� -3l
achment 5
W. Steve Pults
Steven D.Pults AIA&Associates
May 4,2005
Page 2
the impact of SB 800 is still unclear to the insurance industry and,because insurance
companies have shelled out huge suras due to claims i velving construction defects on
condominium projects is the past,it will take some time before they are eager to
Provide coverage. In today's market,with limited capachy,higher rates and an
emphasis on profitability rather than market share,many insurers can afford to just say
no to condos.
Whether the new law will convince insurance companies that it is safe to re-enter
California-and its litigious climate-remains to be seen. Since SB 800 ber=a law,little
has changed as the number of insurers willing to cover high-density projects remains
ewr mely law. The SB 800 legislation may help over the long run,but there are no
tangible signs that it is helping yet. Until that happens,multi-family residential will will
be considered to bean extremely high risk project.
Steve,I hope that this information has helped to clarify the current position of insurers
relative to multi-family projects. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Nichols
Account Executive
SN jM
21z7
(�-32
����IIIV���Illllllullllll� IlI�I������IIAttacrment 6
IIII� III 1U1 - O`
sAn
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
June 13, 2005
Paul Nagy
2691 Laurel Avenue
Morro Bay, CA 93422
SUBJECT: ARC 180-04: 1231 Laurel Lane
Review of a 7-unit.multi4amily residential development project.
Dear Mr. Nagy:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 6, continued action to a
date specific, June 20, 2005 with direction to staff to return with a recommendation for
approval of the project with the seven detached buildings for proposed units. The
Commission drafted preliminary findings for staff to further refine and made two
recommendations on design elements of the project as follows;
Findings
1. The proposal to locate the seven units in detached buildings is a superior
design given the quality of the proposed architecture and building materials and
detailing.
2. The site design with detached buildings results in greater air and light being
available to residents given the spacing between buildings.
3. A proposal to attach the buildings would not necessarily result in increased
density being provided in the project or a more attractive appearing
development.
4. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that there is no
required mandate that structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a
maximum unit size or minimum density requirement.
Recommendations
1. The formerly proposed trellis features for Building A along Laurel Lane should
be reincorporated into in the project. If necessary, findings to support a yard
exception to allow the trellises should be included in the next staff report for
final approval.
Thle 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.
ARC 180-04 Attachment 6
Page 2 _
2. The proposed low retaining walls proposed in the street yards along Laurel
Lane should be replaced with a low, open fence (such as wrought iron) or a
combination of an open fence and hedges or other landscaping.
If you have questions, please contact Tyler Corey at (805) 781-7169.
Sincerely,
it G/
Pamela Ricci, A P
Senior Planner
Community Development
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Pults & Associates
3450 Broad Street, Suite 106
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tierra Bonita A PTP
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93465-5800
��I��IIIIII� IIIIIIIIIIIII Attachment 7
Illlllllllllll���� Il
city of sAn Wig OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
June 23, 2005
Paul Nagy
2691 Laurel Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93422
SUBJECT: ARC 180-04: 1231 Laurel Lane
Review of a 7-unit multi-family residential development project
Dear Mr. Nagy:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 20, 2005, granted final
approval to your project, based upon the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions, and code requirements:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that there is no required
mandate that structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a maximum unit
size or minimum density requirement.
2. The proposal .to locate the seven units in detached buildings is a superior design
given the quality of the proposed architecture and building materials and detailing.
3. The site design with .detached buildings results in greater air and light being
Available to residents given the spacing between buildings.
4. A proposal to attach the buildings would not necessarily result in increased density
being provided in the project or a more attractive appearing development.
5. The street yard setback exceptions along Southwood Drive (10 feet) and Laurel
Lane (12_ feet) are warranted because the site is constrained by two street frontages
and a drainage easement that significantly limits the site's buildable area. The
street yard exceptions along Laurel Lane are for trellises, which were requested by
the ARC and provide the buildings with a sense of street presence and visual
interest, as well as needed architectural relief for the 23-foot tall wall planes that
face the street.
E The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
(r Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
—
ARC 180-04
Attachment 7
Page 2.
6. The project is consistent with the Chapter 5.3 of the Community Design Guidelines
because the unique design provides for superior architectural quality and materials,
incorporates a mixture of the predominant colors and materials found in the
surrounding neighborhood and includes private outdoor living areas (yards, decks)
within the building form.
7. On July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a .Mitigated Negative Declaration for a
rezoning from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated environmental
impacts associated with residential development.
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall construct project so as to substantially conform to plans
submitted to the Community Development Department on June 7, 2005: Any
change to approved design, colors,:materials, landscaping or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as
deemed appropriate.
2_. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and
construction, all construction activities that maydamage those materials shall
immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific. mitigation
based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Community
Development Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation
proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an
acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement
mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director.
3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan with the building permit
application for the project that accurately reflects the approved site plan with specific
attention given to plantings along Laurel Lane, subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
4. The proposed solid wood fencing shall be modified to an open design, such as
wrought iron, to soften the appearance of the project as viewed from Laurel Lane
and allow for views into and out of the project, subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
5. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis (noise study) with the building
permit application or any subsequent planning application(s) to ensure that interior
spaces and exterior private use areas comply with. standards contained in the City's
General Plan Noise Element per Council Resolution No. 9571. (2004 Series).
Code Requirements
The following 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. This is not intended.to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be
identified during the plan check process.
ARC 180-04 Attachment 7
Page 3
1. The applicant shall satisfy the projects Inclusionary Housing requirement prior to
occupancy of the buildings.
2. As shown, public right-of-way does not exist beyond the back of the new driveway
approaches. A pedestrian access easement is required to accommodate the ADA
sidewalk extension. The required easement shall be recorded prior to building
permit issuance. The applicant shall provide any required exhibits necessary to
define the area of the easement. Otherwise, the approaches shall be designed to fit
within the public right=of-way if possible.
3. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan, Volume III,
Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal or any subsequent planning
application(s) shall include a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report if
warranted based on the amount of pervious surface proposed with the final plan.
The submittal shall include erosion control measures and stormwater quality_
management in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual.
4. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site
improvements, retaining walls, new parking lot areas, and for public improvements.
The soils report shall be included with the building permit submittal package and
with the submittal of public improvement plans.
S. The Chinese Pistache along Laurel Lane is on the City's master street tree list and
shall be planted 7.5 feet to 10 feet behind sidewalk. The Birch on Southwood are an
acceptable species for this location. Birch Trees within 7.5 feet from back of
sidewalk are to be planted with a deep root planter. No trees shall be planted within
5 feet from back of sidewalk. Species and numbers of trees are within the cities
requirements of one tree per 35 lineal feet of street frontage.
6. Long-term bicycle parking areas shall be stenciled/labeled so future occupants will
know that the space is intended for bicycle parking.
7. The existing on-street parking shall be maintained. If line of sight issues are
identified at the driveway locations prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall.
process and maintain a red curb permit with the City to install red curbing at the
locations identified by the Public Works Department.
Informational Note:
Architectural Review approval does not constitute nor further the property
towards approval of a subdivision nor does it bring the property into compliance
with the City's Residential Condominium Development Standards.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal
ARC,Bo 04 Attachment 7
Page 4
forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City s website (www.slocity.org)..
The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation.
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 Tyler Corey at 781-7169.
Sincerely,
le G/
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
Community Development
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Pults & Associates
3450 Broad Street, Suite 106
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tierra Bonita A. PTP
6050 York.Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93456
t
ARC Minutes Aftachrhent 8
March 14, 2005 (Special Meeth._,
Page 2
OMMISION COMMENTS:
The Co "ssioners discussed the importance of this gateway property, the Community
Design Gui s, and existing architecture in the vicinity.. Direction was given to the
applicant to chan a orientation of the proposed site plan to place the convenience
store building at the r with the fuel canopy to the interior of the site. Additional
direction was given to trea of building details and site access.
Commr. Lo es moved to continue em to a date uncertain with direction to the
applicant. Seconded by Commr. Wilhelm.
AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Wilhelm, Root, Howa oudreau, Smith, & Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN.: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
2. 1231 Laurel Lane_ ARC 180-04; Review of a. new.7-unit multi-family residential
development in the R-4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending continuance
of the project to a date uncertain, and with direction regarding changes to the overall
design of the project to be consistent with General Plan policy and the Community
Design Guidelines.
Tim Woodlel, Steven D. Pults &Associates, SLO, requested a zoning revision to R-4 for
a 7-unit multi-family residential development. He gave a brief summary of the proposed
projec
PUBLIC-COMMENTS:
Karen McKeen Sonders, SLO, expressed support for the project.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION.COMMENTS:
There was extensive discussion regarding General Plan Policy and. the R-4- zoning
designation of theproperty. The majority of the commissioners favored the design and
detached form of the residences. The applicant was given direction to soften the colors
and increase the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood.
Commr. Wilhelm_ moved approval of-the conceptual _design of the proiect: - and
continuance to May 16. 2005. with.direction to the applicant. Seconded by Commr.
Root. --
�28'
6-V
ARC MinutesAttachment 8
March 14,2005 (Special Meet n w)'
Page 3
Vice-Chair Howard supported the conceptual design, but did not vote because she left
the meeting early.
Commissioner Lopes voted against the action since he supported staffs
recommendation and favored an attached building design as prescribed by General
Plan policy for this high-density.residential property.
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Smith, and Stevenson
NOES: Commr. Lopes
ABSENT: Commr. Howard
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5 : 1 vote.
174 Suburban Road ARCS —05; Review of two new commercial structures in the
S-S zone; KDS Enterprises, applicant. (Buzz Kalkowski) (to be continued to
-1492005)
This item w continued without discussion to the meeting of April 4, 1005.
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Planner Dunsmore gave an ag a forecast of upcoming projects.
5. Commission:
A. Recent Project Review— Lessons L med.
The ARC discussed Commissioner dynamics the value of balanced discussion
regarding General Plan Policy and the Community sign Guidelines.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting a umed at 9:00
p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for' April 4, 2005, at 5: m. in the
Planning Conference Room, at City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Kim Main
Recording Secretary
2�Z�
Attachment 9
ft ARC Minutes
June ,
Page 2
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
2. 1231 Laurel Lane. ARC 180-04; Review of a 7-unit multi-family residential
development project, R-4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Tyler Corey)
As Planner Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending denial of the
project, based on findings which he outlined.
Tim Woodle, applicant's representative, expressed concerns with the City's agenda
report's focus on the General Plan policy issue regarding the site plan including
detached buildings, based on the ARG's support for the plan given on March 14, 2005.
He read into the record excerpts from Commission comments made at that meeting
which supported his position. He noted that there is a significant liability issue with
attached condominiums and that the situation has not appreciably improved. He
pointed out that the project, as designed, meets the private open space requirements
outlined in the Condominium Regulations. He concluded by noting that the plans had
been updated to address the ARC's previous direction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comm Stevenson commented that smaller units in attached buildings would be more
consistent with the site's R-4 zoning and,relevant General Plan policies.
Commr. Howard suggested that the ARC would have to make a finding that the project
is consistent with the General. Plan, if the.commission plans to uphold its prior direction
At the last meeting. She expressed ' support for higher density housing in this
community.
Commr. Wilhelm felt the Commission made a decision to approve the project with
direction on desired changes to the plans at the March 14th meeting.
Commr Boudreau asked for clarification of attached and unattached structures.
Commr. Lopes would like to see the maximum number of units provided that the R-4
density allows.
Commr: Root felt that the site .plan with detached units could be found consistent with
the General Plan, given the "should" language in LUE Policy 2.4.8.
' (O'7
Draft ARC Minutes
Attachment 9
June 6, 2005
Page 3
Commr. Smith stated that the Commission should not address whether this project
should be affordable housing.
Discussion focused on the issue-,of the project's site plan including detached buildings
given General Plan policy encouging more consolidated building types for units in the
R-4 zone and direction for attached buildings provide_d with the Council's review of the
site rezoning.
While the Commission understood staff's position regarding the General Plan policy, a
majority felt that the document language in LUE Policy 2.4.8 provided them with some
discretion to allow detached buildings. The Commission drafted preliminary findings for
staff to further refine and made two recommendations on design elements of the project
as follows: 1) The formerly proposed trellis features for Building A along Laurel Lane
should be reincorporated into in the project. If necessary, findings to support a yard
exception to allow the trellises should be included in the next staff report for final
approval. 2) The low retaining walls proposed in the street yards along Laurel Lane
should be replaced with a low, open fence (such as wrought iron) or a combination of an
open fence and hedges or other landscaping.
On motion by Commr: Wilhelm,to continue this item to, June 20, 2005 with direction to
staff to return with a recommendation for approval of the project with the seven
detached buildings for proposed units. Seconded by Commr. Root.
AYES: Cornmrs. Root, Smith, Wilhelm, Boudreau and Howard
NOES: Commrs. Stevenson, and Jim Lopes
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5 :2 vote..
1045. Foothill. Boulevard; 41 55 & 77 Casa Street; 1010 MurrayAvenue and
Deseret Place. ARC 234-04; Conceptual review of Sierra Vista Hospital
expan • O zone, John Hollander, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Commr. Boudreau st d down from participation due to a potential conflict of interest
given the proximity of his h to the site.
Senior Planner Pam Ricci presente staff report recommending the Commission
continue this project to a date uncertain, direction to the applicant and staff to
provide preliminary comments on the revised hos roject.
John Hollander, applicant, presented his master plan for rra Vista Hospital and
explained the need for increased capacity.
RRM Design Group & Lee, Bukhart, Liu, Inc. (applicant's representative ave a
presentation on the proposed project design and addressed several questions fro e
Commission.
Attachment 10
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
June, 20, 2005
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes,
David Smith, Charles Stevenson, and Chairperson Zeljka Howard
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik, and
Recording Secretary Kim Main
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON.NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1231 Laurel Lane. ARC 180-04, review of a 7-unit multi-family residential
development project; R-4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. ) (Continued from June 6,
2005) (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of the
project based on Commission direction provided at the 6-6-05 meeting. She noted that
this project had been to the ARC on two prior occasions and involved over four hours of
discussion.
lP '`f3
i
• Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 10
-
June 20,2005
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Tim Woodle, project architect, indicated that he supported the staff's recommendation
and was open to alternative fence designs.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The central issue with the review of the project had been whether the submitted site
plan showing 7 detached living units could be found with General Plan policy for the R-4
zone which encourages consolidated buildings to house units. Ultimately a majority of
the ARC found that the proposed design could be found consistent with the-General
Plan. The project had been continued from the June 6th meeting with specific direction
to return to the ARC with a recommendation.for approval, based on the refinement of
draft findings that the ARC had provided, and listing all relevant conditions and code
requirements. Given these circumstances, the ARC moved quickly to a motion for
approval and there was relatively little discussion.
Commr. Stevenson commented on the Commission's long discussions regarding the
consistency of the project's detached buildings consistency with the General Plan and
the R4 zoning district. He noted that the current regulations allow room for
interpretation. He added that the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to
consider changes to the General Plan and applicable codes if they wish them to
mandate certain housing forms or prototypes.
.On a motion made by Commr. Root to approve the project as recommended. by staff.
Seconded by Commr: Boudreau
AYES: Commis. Boudreau, Root, Wilhelm, Howard, Smith, Lopes and Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
�a�7
Filing Fee: $100.00
Attachment 11
Paid
Rff
�A[ C WA JUN Z 2035
ci ry Oe• REFER TIO SECTI4 ON
San Luis 4Bisp0 _ _ s�.o CITY CLERK
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SEWN 1. APPELLANT BYFORM47ION -__-
_Ken Hamoian, cAo,dw of SLO.990 PalmStreet.San Luis Obispo.Ca_93401 .
Name --- -- ._ Mailing Address and Zip Code
-781-71.14- - - 781-7109
Phone Fax
Representat'ive's Name Milling Address and Zip Code
Tale 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:
Architectural Review Commission
(Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: June 20.2005
3. The application or project was entitled: ARC 180.04 at 1231-Laurel Lane - -.
.4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
Not applicable(see SIA Muni Code 42.48.080D-- on
(Staff Members Name and Departrnent) (per)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so_,when was it heard and by wtmm
No
9EC7fON 1 REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actionts you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what igy lerioe you have that supports your appeal. You may aMwh addi-mW pages,if
necessary. This farm continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Attachment 11
Reason for Appeal coWnued
On June 1 2004 Council members expressed strong preferences directly to the awficant that in de-
signing a residential project,detached units should be avoided and the design should'instead be
more consistent with the"common wale'style typical of R-4 development(apartment style,not
single-family house style). The CWs General Plan requires that R-4 development primarily be
attached The recent exceptions to this rule(including one on Augusta Street)have involved tall
detached strictures with a common driveway,and have resulted in less than satisfactory design.
(see attached letter to applicant)
SECTION& APPELLANT'SAESPONsigaiTY
The San Luis Obispo.. '. .Council;va)ues:public participation 1n 1pgsai; oven
uteri
encourages all fors of citizen involvemerhi "However,dtl ,toireai iated:hrspt�i7y
Council consideration of an.appeal, induding::pUbft wrtaihung to;a.
planning application prol are'subject to....a in` fee a y`'' d'; HTd1N i1 ►Ytst aecoEtNpl13!the
tannin lu�tion or •fit
appeal form. µ :,,,,•:,�,..: -:. : •
Your right to exercise an appeal rsomesa. itfi.i . ",;.IynsibiiGCiAS :ff you f7i a ari .,
appeal,please understand that It must be heard,witiii I� S11,001 "M-Is:form :Ymu-fill be
nottiied in writing of the exact date your appeal,1 be IjM ` + th8
�rncil. You Cir your
representative Hn11 be ex 2MI tc attend the.putitic
case. Your testimo�/is IiiriiDecl to 1'0 min' I` to 'PPated#O make;iur .
"J .. . .,, �:,i; G SII,:I
A continuance mayk�granted undeEr:certain circ!unusual circumstances. If you:fpel.you
treed m request a contmuarpe;.you must.sub ur req g:f itFiiA MI M;Rbd
yo ? :.i^:.: Ike' Wage. .:
advised didt'rf. r ':I' ,.:r•, .
your request,for oonunuanceis`received'' w°the
Sap `roti "to tFiQ;pubfio,the'
Council may not be abla.t9, rantthe requeSf fior corlti1:1 .'. ".i t reouest fccy Kfflrntranoe°
does not guarantee that it.i;I _granteit�tli: action "`
r ..of rs.���:,_,�;�ilscx+etlon,�f the City,CcM jn�J:.
hereby agree to appear and/or*Ph d a re fon iny�I n
h.
sal 1 ed fPorapn
t4 .
publle hear/n9
...... � Flu •� ' - °;r ,ji,.
Ewsptions to the fea: 1)App"of Tree Cows iittiele tiedsio(is's'' V:�.. . :; I;.;,ci:.. 1: :.'.
_ /y����yM -to 1,��, %��p y,Y ambo/M(9�ay�aytl � •tai yY.(.��
-the�$100 to appew a&$�e' to a 6 16141 or 6bd.. QY•^•J�.VMrYxjwwu.'.:. . rr..`,I is P'.i •T.��.. .
This Item Is hereby catendared for July 19.2005
c: City Attorney
City Admtnishativs Officer
Department head — F&&VLIW
Advisory Body Chairperson — Tei
i a
pia"lel Page 2 of 3
UJtuS,�Lf
a(M
Attachment 11
Chapter 1.20
APPEALS PROCEDURE
Sections:
120.010 Title.
120.020 Right to appeal.
120.030 Time within which to file an appeal.
120.040 Hearing-Notice.
120.0.50 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final.
120.010 We.
This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Prooedure"for the city. (Prior code§1400)
120.020 Right to appeal.
A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise.specifically set forth in thls code, any person
objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any
nature, the determination or issuance of which Is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any
administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial,suspension or revocation of such
license,permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of
administrative discretion or personal judgment.exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may
appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the
specific grounds for the appeal
B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the
provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department
head concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement
questions,unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board.
C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under any of
the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the
exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this
code, whether the administrative decision involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a
license,pemtit, entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044§ 1, 1985:prior cede§1401)
120.030 Time within which to file an appeal.
The appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within tan calendar days after the date upon
which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls
on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day,and this rule
shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code §
1402)
120.040 Hearing-Notice.
Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal in its proper form,the city clerk shall place the matter on
the council agenda. Except in uses of emergency, when the council may determine the matter
immacliately, or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for
hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than fortyfive calendar
days atter the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk The city clerk shall cause
written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than fire business days prior to such
hearing,unless such notice is waived in writing by the applicant, (Ord 1252§1,1994:prior code§1403)
120.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final.
At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified In the notice of appeal why the
action appealed from should not be approved The council may continue the hearing from time to time,
and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (Prior code§ 1404)
Page 3 of 3
8/03
�p'Y
Attachment 11
City Of SAn WIS OB19V
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
June 23, 2005
Paul Nagy
2691 Laurel Ave.
Morro Bay,CA 93422
Dear Mr.Nagy-
in
agyIn my capacity as the City Administrative Officer,I have appealed ARC approval 180-04 to the
City Council (attached). I am writing you this letter to provide a bit more background that will
perhaps better explain my action.
As you know,on June 1,2004,the City Council approved a General Plan amendment and zone
change for your property,Iocated at 1231 Laurel Lane,to change the allowed use from
commercial to residential. General Plan amendments and.zone changes are"legislative"actions
by the Council. In other words,Council has wide latitude in whether or.not to allow the change;
based on their preferences and vision for the community. With regard to your property,the
Council judged a change from commercial to residential use as appropriate.
However, in making this change,some Council members expressed strong preferences directly
to the applicant that in designing a residential project,detached units should be avoided and the
design should instead be more consistent.with the"common wall"style typical of R-4
development(apartment style,not single family house style). This preference-was expressed on
the heels of a less than satisfactory experience the Council had in reviewing a similar proposal.on
Johnson Avenue. These sentiments were recorded in the minutes(attached),and in listening to
the audio tape,they were clearly expressed by more than one Council member(available in the
City Clerk's Office). No other Council members objected to these concerns during the meeting.
The City's General Plan requires that R-4 development primarily be attached.The recent
exceptions to this rule(including one on Augusta Street)have involved tall detached structures
with a common driveway,and have insulted in less than satisfactory designs.
While you have designed.a project satisfactory to the ARC,and which may very well address the
kinds of concerns Council had with the Johnson Avenue and Augusta projects,detached housing
is still not the primary intent of the General Plan in the R-4 zone. For this reason,along with the
Council's earlier expressed concerns,I am professionally obligated to provide the Council with
an opportunity to formally review and confirm(or not)the ARC's decision. It is for this reason
that I have initiated the appeal,which will be heard on July 19,2005. Whether or not individual
council members may have changed their views since the June 1,2004, action is irrelevant to my
decision to appeal. I can only act on what happens during a formal meeting of the City Council,
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunkations Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 107
/ JL
lQ'T
Attachment 11
and what happened during the June 1,2004, meeting has determined my action to provide the
Council with this review opportunity.
I hope this letter has provided you with some added insight into my decision to appeal your
project.
Sincerely yours,
CA;
Ken Hmpian
City Administrative Officer
cc; City Council
ArchtecturaI Review Commission
Staff distribution
Attachments:
1. June 1,2004 Council minutes
2. Appeal
, 1
Attachment 11
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday,June 1,2004,5:45 p.m.
Carol Florence,Oasis Associates,representing Coast BMW/Nlssan,presented a brief
overview of the sculpture and the desire of the applicant. She also distributed a letter from
Catherine King Norton,San Luis Obispo Ans Council,showing their support(see tetter an
file in the City Clerk's Office).
Jim Jacobson,artist,discussed the details of the art work and the merits In making It
accessible to pedestrian traffic.
Mayor.Romem opened the public hearing.
Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo,spoke in support of the CAO recommendation. He voiced
concern regarding vandalism if the art work was to be placed on the corner.
Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Schwartz to adopt Resolution No.%70(2004 Series)
uphold the eal,and u _ _ ____ _ __ ___ __
Ing pp upholding the Art Jury's reoornmendatton to a11ow the
public art at the proposed location In front of the building subject to findings and
conditions;motion carried 5:0.
& OENERAL.Pt.AN AMENDMENT AND.REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY AT 1231 LAUREL
LANE(GP/RiER 121-031. -
Deouty Director-Community Develooment Whlsenand explained that this General Plan
amendment was the first In a series and that It Cddholl approved this recommendation In
concept,all General:Plan amendments would be brought back on 7%6/04 for final passage.
Associate.Planner Corey presented the.staff report.
Thr Woodte.Putts&Associates and Senior Architect for the project,answered questions
from the Council.
Mayor Romero opened the public hearing.
Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo,voiced support for the project.
Mayor Romero dosed the public h
Council recommended that staff share with the Planning Commission and the ARC that any
project design for this particular property should be apartment style structures rather than
separate structures.
ACTION: Moved by Settle/Mulholland to adopt Resolution No.9571 (2004 Series)
eonoeptuagy approving a Mltlgated,NWUve Declaration of emrhonmeMel Impact
(ER 121-03)and amendment to the City's iagd Use Element Map and Zoning Map
designations from Neighborhood Commercial(C4R)to High Density Residentlat(R-
4),which directs staff to return the project to the Council at the duly 6,2004 regular
meeting,to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project;motion carried
5:0.
Attachment 12
�ulluVill q�l �IIII� IIIcity of sAn tups OBWO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
March 15, 2005
Paul Nagy
2691 Laurel Avenue
Morro Bay, CA 93422
SUBJECT: ARC'180-04: 1231 Laurel Lane
Review of a new 7-unit multi-family residential development in the
R-4 zone
Dear Mr. Nagy:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 14, 2005, continued
consideration of the project to a date certain, May 16, 2005, with the following direction:
1. Remove Building B's west-facing usable deck area and replace it with an
architectural embellishment that provides the visual appearance of a deck.
2. Explore the reduction of the overall height of the buildings.
3. Modify the proposed color combinations and building materials to blend with the
surrounding neighborhood and soften the "high tech° appearance of the design.
4. Modify the handrails to provide a less metropolitan appearance.
5. Explore options to the walls along Laurel Lane and define area and functionality of
outdoor spaces.
If you have questions, please contact Tyler Corey at 781-7169.
Sincerely, cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
r Pults & Associates
lT i�U 3450 Broad Street, Suite 106
Pamela Ricci, Al P San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Senior Planner
Community Development Bonita Tierra
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93465-5800
UThe 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. 1
Attachment 13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1
BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169)-� MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARC 180-04
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: Review of a 7-unit detached apartment project, including street yard setback
exceptions, located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive in the R-4
zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request to construct a 7-unit, detached apartment project in the R-4 zone based on
findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On June 6, 2005 the ARC reviewed the subject application and continued action on the project
to June 20, 2005 with direction to return with a recommendation for approval of the project with
the seven detached buildings for proposed units (Attachment 3). The staff reports for the
Previous review hearings (March 14`s & June e).recommended that the proposed site planning
strategy to include all proposed.units in individual buildings be redesigned to be consistent with
Council's direction and General Plan policy to include at least some of the units in attached
structures (Attachments 4 & 5). However, at the 6/20 hearing, the ARC drafted preliminary
findings that provide justification for their support of the project as submitted with all of the
units in detached buildings.
Data Stimmary
Address: 1231 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative: Steven D. Pults&Associates
Zoning: R=4(High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: On July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a rezoning from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated
environmental impacts associated with residential development.
Site Description
See the March 15`s ARC report(Attachment 4).
6,
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel L,...e) Attachment 13
Page 2
Project Description
See the June a ARC report(Attachment 5).
Previous ARC:Direction
The ARC reviewed this application at their June 6,2005 meeting and continued consideration of
the project with direction. The ARC's direction is listed below in bold print and staffs analysis
follows in italics.
1. The formerly proposed trellis features for Building A (Units 1, 2 & 3) along Laurel
Lane should be reincorporated into in the project.
Staff's Anal sis- The applicant has reincorporated the trellis features for Units 1, 2 & 3 along
Laurel Lane into the project consistent with ARC's direction.. The trellises provide the buildings
with a sense of street presence and visual interest, as well as needed architectural relief for the
23 foot tall wall planes that face the street. The trellises encroach approximately 3 feet into the
required street yard setback along Laurel Lane. The recommendation includes a finding in
support of the minor street yard reduction.
2. The low retaining walls proposed in the street yards along Laurel Lane should be
replaced with a low, open fence (such as wrought iron) or a combination of an open
fence and hedges or other landscaping.
Stafj"s.Analvsis: The site walls along Laurel Lane have been modified to solid.wood fencing,.
which creates a walled-off appearance to the street and does not allow views into and out of the.
project. If fencing is desired along Laurel Lane, staff recommends incorporating an open
design, such as wrought iron or other decorative material that blends with the project's
architecture and softens the appearance of the project.
EVALUATION
General Plan -
After more than four hours of deliberation (spanning two meetings) regarding the project's
conformity with the General Plan, the ARC crafted preliminary findings for staff to further
refine that support the proposed detached apartment project in the High-Density Residentialland
use designation. The basis for ARC's General Plan conformity determination is found within
Land Use Element Policy 2.4.8,which states, "High-Density Residential development should be
primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and
very compact private outdoor spaces." The ARC felt that this policy does not specifically
mandate attached buildings with multiple units and that attaching the units would not necessarily
result in an increase in site density since the City does not have maximum unit size or minimum
density requirements, or a more attractive development. Staff's refined findings are detailed
below.
ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lae) Attachment 13
Page 3
Zoning Re lations
The proposed site design requires a setback exception from 15 feet to 10 feet for structures along
Southwood Drive and from 15 feet to 12 feet for trellis features along Laurel Lane. The ARC
has reviewed these exceptions at previous meetings and supports the requests. The detached
apartment project complies with all other property development standards established for the
High-Density Residential (R-4) zone..
Landscaping
Extensive landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the units.
The private rear yards for Units 47 will be completed by future occupants. Landscaping will
consist of various flowering ground covers and low-growing flowering plants, a mix of low and
medium height shrubs, vines, and a variety of evergreen trees (Queen Palm, Brisbane Box), and
deciduous trees (European White Birch, Chinese Pistache,Bradford Pear). The landscaping plan
contains a variety of plant materials of different forms and sizes to create an interesting
presentation. The proposed plant locations and species are shown on the conceptual landscape
plan, which is provided in the project plans (sheet L-1).
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The recently adopted General Plan Housing Element requires new residential developments with
five or more units to comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements. The project
proposes 7 residential units and will need to either build 3% low or 5% moderate income
Affordable Dwelling Units per acre, but not less than one per project or pay an in-lieu fee equal
to 5% of the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued. The
applicant has submitted an Inclusionary Housing proposal requesting to pay the in-lieu fee,.
which has been reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.. Standards
require that the project fulfill its Inclusionary Housing obligation prior to occupancy of the new
building. A code requirement has been included that restates this requirement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions.
2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff and the applicants.
3. The Commission may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. Action
denying the application should include the basis for denial.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This item was distributed to the Public Works, Fire, Building and Utilities Departments, and
comments received have been included as project conditions and code requirements where
appropriate..
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel L...,e)
Attachment 13
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request to construct a 7-unit, detached apartment project in the R-4 zone based on
findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements.
Findines:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that there is no required mandate
that structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a maximum unit size or minima_m
density requirement.
2. The proposal to locate the seven units in detached buildings is a superior design given the
quality of the proposed architecture and building materials and detailing.
3. The site design with detached buildings results in greater air and light being available to
residents given the spacing between buildings.
4. A proposal to attach the buildings would not necessarily result in increased density being
provided in the project or a more attractive appearing development.
5. The street yard setback exceptions along Southwood Drive (10 feet) and Laurel Lane (12
feet) are warranted because the site is constrained by two street frontages and a drainage
easement that significantly limits the site's buildable area. The street yard exceptions along
Laurel Lane are for trellises, which were requested by the ARC and provide the buildings
With a sense of street presence and visual interest, as well as needed architectural relief for
the 23-foot tall wall planes that face the street.
6. The project is consistent with the Chapter 5.3 of the Community Design Guidelines because
the unique design provides for superior architectural quality and materials, incorporates a
mixture of the predominant colors and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood and
includes private outdoor living areas (yards, decks)within the building form.
7. On July 6, 2004,the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a rezoning
from C-N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated environmental impacts associated
with residential development.
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall construct project so as to substantially conform to plans submitted to the
Community Development Department on June 7, 2005. Any change to approved design,
colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the
Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all
construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project
sponsor shall then propose speck mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's
�-S3�
ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel'Lae) Attachment 13
Page 5
recommendations. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with
changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to
reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, theproject
sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director.
3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan with the building permit application for
the project that accurately reflects the approved site plan with specific attention given to
plantings along Laurel Lane, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
4. The proposed solid wood fencing shall be modified to an open design, such as wrought iron,
to soften the appearance of the project as viewed from Laurel Lane and allow for views into
and out of the project, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis (noise study) with the building permit
application or any subsequent planning application(s) to ensure that interior spaces and
exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise
Element per Council Resolution No. 9571 (2004 Series).
Code Requirements:
1. The applicant shall satisfy the project's Inclusionary Housing requirement prior to occupancy
of the buildings.
2. As shown, public right-of-way does not exist beyond the back of the new driveway
approaches. A pedestrian access easement is required to accommodate the ADA sidewalk
extension. The required easement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The
applicant shall provide any required exhibits necessary to define the area of the easement.
Otherwise,the approaches shall be designed to fit within the public right-of-way if possible.
3. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management PIan,.Volume III, Drainage
Design Manual. The building plan submittal or any subsequent planning application(s) shall
include a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report if warranted based on the
amount of pervious surface proposed with the final plan. The submittal shall include erosion
control measures and stormwater quality management in accordance with Section 10.0 of the
manual.
4. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site improvements,
retaining walls,new parking lot areas, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be
included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public
improvement plans.
5. The Chinese Pistache along Laurel Lane is on the City's master street tree list and shall be
planted 7.5 feet to 10 feet behind sidewalk. The Birch on Southwood are an acceptable
species for this location. Birch Trees within 7.5 feet from back of sidewalk are to be planted
with a deep root planter. No trees shall be planted within 5 feet from back of sidewalk.
js-
ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel A----ie) 1
Attachment 13
Page 6
Species and numbers of trees are within the cities requirements of one tree per 35 lineal feet
of street frontage.
6. Long-term bicycle parking areas shall be stenciled/labeled so future occupants will know that
the space is intended for bicycle parking.
7. The existing on-street parking shall be maintained. If line of sight issues are identified at the
driveway locations prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall process and maintain a red
curb permit with the City to install red curbing at the locations identified by the Public Works
Department.
Informational Note-
Architectural Review approval does not constitute nor further the property towards
approval of a subdivision nor does it bring the property into compliance with the City's
Residential Condominium Development Standards.
ATTACHMENTS
G:Vcorey\ARC1ARC\ARC 180-04 NagyWtC 180-04 rpt(6-20).doc
�—S^7
Attachment 14
Draft Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
CON51ISSIOWS ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING A 7-UNIT,
DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT IN THE R4 ZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE, (ARC 180-04).
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on June 20,. 2005, approved a 7-
unit, detached apartment project in the R4 zone, based on findings and subject to conditions and
code requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action on June 23,2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Paha Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19,
2005, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the.Architectural Review Commission's action;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence; including the records of the
Architectural Review Commission hearings and action, testimony of interested parties, and the
evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
[Council specifies findings]
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny an appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission's action, thereby approving a 7-unit, detached apartment project in the R4
zone at 1131 Laurel Lane, application No. ARC 180-04.
Attachment 1'f
Resolution No. (2005 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 191s day of July,2005.
Mayor David F.Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney
6 -s
Attachment 15
Draft Resolution `B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2005 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 A 7-UNIT,
DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT IN THE R-4 ZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED.AT 1231 LAUREL LANE,(ARC 180-04).
WHEREAS, the Architectuial Review Commission, on June 20; 2005, approved a 7= .
unit, detached apartment project in the R4'zone, based on findings and subject to conditions and
code requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action on June 23, 2005; and
WHEREAS., the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Pala► Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19,
2005, for the purpose of considering_ an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the records of the
Architectural Review Commission hearings and action, testimony of interested parties, and the
evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
[Council specifies findings]
SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council does hereby uphold an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action,thereby denying a 7-unit; detached apartmentproject
in the R-4 zone at 1231 Laurel Lane, application No. ARC 180-04.
(�=60
Attachment , 15
Resolution No. (2005 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 19`h day of July,2005.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney
RED FILE
MEETIN9 AGENDA
IIIIUIIUIIIIiI��I����IIIII DATE� d ITEM # �
council memoizanbum
cit ,ofgwa its(36�s o: a
DATE: July 14, 2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROMa Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Kv
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM PH6 - GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1231 LAUREL LANE (ARC 180-04)
Council received the attached request for a continuance of the subject project from Tim Mark Woodle.
Because the August 2nd meeting has been cancelled, and because of the number and length of items
scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of August 16th and the special meeting of August 23rd;
the meeting of.September 6th is the earliest meeting at which this matter could be considered.
COUNC1 CDD DIR
�j CAO FIN DIR
El ACAO FIRE CHIEF
❑ ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERKIORIG POLICE CHF
DE HEADS REC DIR
�'J +' UTIL DIR
HR DIR
G:\301703 AGE NDASVRed File Correspondence\Red File 071905 PH6 Laurel Lane Request for Continuance.DOC
Steven D.Pults.-AIA�Associdtes
January s;2005 =RECEIVED
Mr. Tyler Corey
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Re: ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lane)
Tyler,
As you are aware,the Laurel Lane project is scheduled for City Council consideration on
Tuesday,July 19.
Although we are anxious to move forward as soon as possible, we formally request a
continuance to the next available Council meeting. Summer schedules and vacations have
resulted in conflicts would make it difficult for our team to make the July 19 hearing date.
Thank you in advance for your assistance: We look forward to continuing to work with you on
this project..
Regards,
Tim Mark Woodle, AIA
Principal
Cc: Mr. Paul Nagy
Architecture,Planning Gnglxcs
3450 Broad Street—Suite 106'
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805) 541-5604
Fax(805)541-4371