Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/06/2005, PH3 - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED 7-UNIT, DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN
council 1/464 j ac En as izEpoin Imo" } 3 CITY O.F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner 9714 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED 7- UNIT, DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED 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 (ARC) approval of a 7-unit, detached apartment project located in the High-Density Residential (R4) zone, and either uphold the approval or deny the project, based on General Pian 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 evaluated environmental impacts associated with residential development. Situation On July 7, 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. Council's direction followed recently approved projects at 1771 Johnson Avenue and 680 Foothill Blvd. 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). 3=l Council Agenda Report—ARC 180-04 September 6,2005 Page 2 On September 23, 2004, the City receivedanapplication 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 14a', June 6`" & June 20`' meetings. The Architectural Review Agenda Reports for the previous meetings (March 14`" &June 6`") 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 14`s ARC report(Attachment 4). Project Description See the June 6t'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." Staff has provided detailed analyses as to whether the proposed site design complies with this policy in the March 14`x' and June 6`s 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 3 -a Council Agenda Report—ARC 180-04 September 6,1005 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 - Laurel Lane 4�, zoned land (approximately 69 acres; 0 currently vacant excluding the subject site). Attached development (common Wall) fosters S apartment style (for rent) units 1, 0 u rather than individual i t 7 n ownerships, which provides an 0 , Til—mii— important housing tenure 0 J d 4�1.f7 (means of holding real estate) for residents consistent with D General Plan Housing Element !I r Goal 5.1. IJIV The ARC found the project consistent with the General PlanSop based on the following finding: -- ----- --- Zip "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." In considering this appeal the Council will want to review this finding and dete-n*ru*ne 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 cise 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.ity. 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 14th ARC report (Attachment 4), 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. 3 -3 Council Agenda Report—ARC 180-04 September 6,2005 Page 4 Architectural.Review Commission Action On June 20, 2005, the ArchitecturalReview 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 6`h 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 14`h, June.6th and June 20`h ARC meetings are attached for reference (Attachments 8, 9 & 10). Appeal Fded 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 the 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: 3 -y CouncH Agenda Report—ARC 180-04 September 6,2005 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES 1. the Council may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. As a.fbllow> 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 Residential 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. ATTACILIAENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Minutes from the June 1, 2004, Council meeting 4. Staff report from the March 14, 2005, ARC meeting 5. Staff report from the June 6, 2005, ARC meeting 6- ARC follow-up letter- dated June 13, 2005 T. 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 1-0. Minutes from the June 20;'2005 ARC meeting ll, Appeal letter from Ken Harnpian, 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\CC\,kRC 180-04(Nagy)WRC 180-04 cc rpt.ftc 3-6 1 u�� yrs �(�iu� . .'�1� � - mom: p ssAttachment 2 _Imoll 1 03 . d, 4�"fi y3 z t � 4dE a�ee se ser Ilk —J 1. LLIss^ one I ,`3 —7 't.6"(.baY A+L. vSL ai'r6�i-,ihfl9'� WS . \■■ vel• are \ice' all ■■� .4 ■■r :�� ■■i ■■ ■■i \\ ■■ s■ ■■ ■■ \ ii ■a ii is - REM\ ■■ ■■ so \1214 on ffig iiiiMENOMOiis �iie°iiiMENEMeiii 1 e■■■e■■■■■■■■ ■■■e■■■■■■■e■■e■■■■■■e■■low ■■■e 1 1■eIsml le �■ ! 1 ION iii ° an e . 1■■1 v r �� �1■■1 �[II■ :c ■■O■ ���������� — a ■[011 �- a■ Ste■DOE ME :: a:;`o:::p ♦ / �� Ni ei , ' \ �� GG ■e / �' e� z - SAI NEW del MSRI gal �: �II1 �a 5 � my 111 11 an 1281 01 IN ■■ • •; iiII �, � ii � .. ii .. ie i,7 ': -. I. iiL.�_—_, u ii_ Iii ■■ ■■■OEM MEN KENN ■r■■■r■■■■■■■r�s■■�a■■■■■■r�■s�■■■■■aii■N■■ I ■910111 ■■■■n■■■ ■■■■■■n■■s■a■■■■n'■■H■■ I ■ENT MEN■s�■■I�;a■■■■■■a■■■■d■■■u:5■u■■ ME son HENAM MEMMUMINEM! WEI II■■1 e■1 ■ .c qr,� ur, ■ a NMI I ' ■ ■ ■ � '` � . ' 1■CI 'loot -' `rte ■■nM ,. 1\■1 MEQ d4ri!pv ��I■■i I .._ WE K - - AttacP�ment 2 lit -1 J IM t of j g ra V l<t 5 x.tj ! g a 8 a e x x t t E d aw.m,a. 3 3 ! I !� I � O 1 161 11 $i 1 111 11 1 ! I 3! m v < - $! - — a tgw�wv L1 yr-p _ , jl■}1, Att cmer t 2 1-0 '�rY'�I O II I I �ryP'Q�Q BB'S •�[��_ J q� � � P all NMI,u+ ` � f g � � y CJ �x N 0 3 --�1 Attachment 2 tg 44 , . 0 � M y N _ O A cement 2 44 14 - o ac a. ❑❑o 0 ❑❑a ❑ ❑ Ml o lie e eoeee e oeee 3 -13 �;; A ci.ment 2 Ci -0i pf relc�ossy9`'Pry`ppy'Qr�1S 8• � � � � — EO B3 EB ED -DER f ® - m e _ - --- — ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ! ❑ I � � 000000000000 / i' � •T GO��I ISI����� �IIIIIIIIIIIIII� IIIIII�i illi����II i�'�id����. ''. IIII II L VIII���I�ill ii���� 1..�'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ili���ii li���li I::,II it III�I III il'�����f"' IIIA htll�l Ib - 1 pI� II. Kr 1, Ill�f■1 q,iin.' 4Tq�� i - .}Ai��.. �41d��llin IN on �. +. �i, ®® �il'� ■■ >; ,�,G^'S �r�. .,w, IF ME ■® ■■ . ■■ \1 aME ME °v ■■ ■® ■® tlZ`. all � smAll �L �Li ::::::::::::::somommunmmmmmmm : ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ .. CIA _ -!;a`�w 1■■1 5� IBJ q -`'�� � �,.F�.7,.� � r<-.'�S�a..� ,`� Wallof 1■■1 i p. �a �� b iM1 ■� 1■■1 OF 1■■1 . ■ ar 1■���yyy■1 i h F " i ■all 1■■1 I j _ ^� ■■i9 K' ■■■83 ,� r� m64:•�c 1■■1 i ■■■a ■i131! :ii ,L iia■i � f ' vi i C . p�t it ■111 '// ? �i) i■ ai., i /�f .Ir■ +i1��r <"g�l�B 1 / y . vt,. . Attachment 3 City council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday,June 1,2004,5:45 p.m. re ce Oasis Associates,representing Coast BMWINissan,presented a brief o sculpture and the desire of the applicant. She also distributed a letter from Catherine n,San Luis Obispo Arm Council,showing their support(see letter an fila In the City Cie Office). Jim Jacobson,artist, the details of the art work and the merits in making it accessible to pedestrian traftic. Mayor Romero opened the public heart Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo,spoke In support o CAO recommendation. He voiced concern regarding vandalism a the art work was to be p on the comer. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Schwartz to adopt.Resolution o.. (2004 Series) upholding the aPPeal,and upholding the Art Jury's recommendation 1611111aw the public art at the proposed location In front of the building subject to findin d conditions;motion carried 5:0. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TQ F11214 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY AT 1231 LAUREL , LANE(GPJRiER 121-03). Deputy Director Communit D-evelopment Whisenand explained that this General Plan amendment was the first In a wiles and that if Council approved this recommendation In concept,all General Pian amendments would be brought back on 7MM for final passage. Associate Planner Corey presented the staff report. TIM Woodle.Pulm&Associates and Senior Architect for the project,answered questions from the Council Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Andrew Cermr.San Luis Obispo,voiced support for the protect. Mayor Romero dosed 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 Settle/Mulholland to adopt Resolution No.9571 (2004 Serles) conceptually approvbrg a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental Impact (ER 121-09)and amendment to the City's Lend use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood Commercial(C-1O to High Density Reslderitial 01- 4 which directs staff to raWm the protect to the Council at the July 6,2004 regular meeting,to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project;motion carried 5:4. Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Tyler Corey,Associate Planner(781-7169) MEETING DATE:March 14, 2005 FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner P� 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 grated high-density site designated -dens . for hi ty residential development. 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 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 3 -/ 7 . ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane, A1Ch1Ylellt 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 _ t� proposing to construct seven detached, two- Z ; e bedroom dwelling units on either side of a 20- i foot wide driveway located off Southwood " Drive. Two separate building designs are S being proposed: o � �In hWs.2 1. Building A is approximately 1,521 square feet and includes : $ 3-levels with 2- o I bedrooms and a loft, 2- 00 car garage, 77 square- p o foot deck and private r front yard areas that face ; o a Laurel Lane; Buildiag B e - is approximately 1,455 LL Square feet and also g , includes 34evels with 2- dill "kr - bedrooms and a loft, 2- car car garage, three decks 2: 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 corner 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 staffs 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 3 -I S' 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 21.12.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 P 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 R4 district are to: "provide housing opportunities for smaller households 3 -1 9 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 development." Staff Analysis: 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 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 R4 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 staff's analysis follows in italics: 1. 53.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. 53.0 (Visual Impacts from Building Height). The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is desired,an infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on adjacent smaller homes,and to protect solar access. Sta"s Analysis. The maximum building height allowed in the R4 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 and/or modifying roof forms. 3. 53.B (Building Design). An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing. hooses in the neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details. 3 �ao ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lanz. . - Attachment 4 Page 5 4. 53.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. 5.3.F (Exterior Colors). Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider the colors of existing houses in the neighborhood,to maintain compatibility. Staff'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. Attachment 4 ARC 180-04 0231 Laurel Lant., 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�prcject 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. roject5. 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 rr 3 a'-a 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 F fR 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 R4 zone. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the request to construct a 7-unit, detached, residential development in the R4 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. J �� ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel cane) = ' ! , A`.taChment 5 Page 2 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 R4 at the subject property, which evaluated environmental impacts associated with residential development. Site Description See the March 15`s ARC report (Attachment 5). Project Description The applicant is proposing to construct seven detached, two- Laurel Lane E{ bedroom dwelling units on either side of .a 20-foot wide driveway located off - Southwood Drive. Two , separate building desi!gns are id being proposed: Building A is 1:1 g f approximately 1,521 square 1110 l "i• feet and includes 34evels with t 2-bedrooms and a loft, 2-car I h <" garage, 77 square-foot deck 0 . and front yard areas that .face I d `" - - ` 1 Jill Laurel Lane; Building B is ® ; approximately 1,455 square I r a feet and also includes 3-levels with 2-bedrooms and aloft, 2- q� ' car garage, two decks totaling q F9 220 square feet and private I l rear yard areas. Other components of the project ji include three guest parking T I spaces, five short-term bicycle parldng 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 staffs 3 raY 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. Stafi"'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. Staffs 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. Staffs 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 features for 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 staffs opinion, these trellises should be reincorporated into the project. 4. Modify the handrails to provide a less metropolitan appearance. Statl''s.Analysis: As previously mentioned, the steel handrails and cable dividers have been replaced with wooden posts and copper railings. S. 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 Zane for adjacent units are desired then other alternatives remain Attachment 5 ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lane) - Page 4 available. From staff's view, replacing the walls with an earthen berm a_ndlor landscape screening could significantly improve the appearance of the project. EVALUATION General Plan As discussed in further detail in staff's March 15th 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 beprimarily 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. Zoning Regulations As discussed in further detail in staff's March 15`s 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 R4 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. i Attachment 5 ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Lanej 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 LA 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. � t } Attachment 5 ARC 180-04 (1231 Laurel Laney- Page aneyPage 6 2. The project is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-4 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 C:UemyNARC1ARCWRC19044 Nagy1ARC 18044 tpt(6.6).doc A`tachment 5 May 4; 2005 Ron Whisenand Depul Community Development M-Wtor Development Review City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Cris Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Cotdomm'—u ns Dear Ron: After several.discassions with City stn$ it seems them is a misconception that construction indastly liali ty problems,regarding condominiums,are no longi an issue. Nothing would be further from the truth. The liability for Architects and Contractors is as bad as it has ever been: The following is a qww from the California AIA, in March 2005: "Resi&Wal construction defect Iitigattion steeps Aidst Qrclt teeYs from desirgn ft condominiums. Insurers and risk advisors�gularly advise grdrireps not to design condor nhms. ff they da Ih*could lose urea wswwwe coverage. Tate reality int deatgn a condo, get sued Attached is.a letter from our insurance company that very Clearly outlines the eurtenf sitnatian Whiding recent legislation that was supposed to fiat the problem With the City's pmh to provide more housing, esPedally attached air-space type onndominims. ore are faced with some diT=9f choices. We am do 9M type of project with the understanding dw"i will be sued wi9,in the taut year time limit, se wri try and design s project that tries to limit the liability, umally involving separate detached units, or.. we can tarn down the work. We do not expect the City to stop pushing for housing and in f ul we agree,wkh the cionce pt. Our goal has been to try and find alternatives to airrspace type desire wh¬ loosing the density eva yme is looking for. ! hope this i> kmation is helpful. 1f you have any questions, or avant to discuss this issue fru W,Please give me a call. JIMults,ALA. Mach: DRA Letter J03aBmdJ*W—A0IM Sato 06isj10,CA bo, (805)50-00 Far(805)504371 ttr•"lr•y. ddlW +tachment 5 Ina<ururrrr lireu•.... i April 29,2005 W. Steve Putts Steven D.Putts AIA&Associates 3450 Broad"St:, Suite 106 IMP South Lou Rnbl"Ave San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P wi kso V C�q,Int Re: SB 800lCondaminiunuus Tel �n BUMit rnr..rtn,trrarrar+arur Dear Steve: As you know,Dealey,Renton&Associates specializes in insurance for Architects and Engineers and ccutently iast=ever 3,000 flims Mcwidc. Condominiums and other multi-family residential has been a popular topic for the 14st serval years. Per our recent discussion about SB 800,the impact of this legislation on design professional's has yet to be detrm2tntnr In=without extensive committee hearings and ami,the legislature forced through SB 800 on the last 4ay,of its session, It is unclear if4ay 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 considmble mom for interpretation by the coum and mmy provisiens are imprecise.The ecceptioas created wMa the statute for defect actions brought byhomeowners"to enforce a contract or express oonv:actual provisIM or any action for fraud,personal injury or violation of a statute"have the pountial to undemine.the cffectiveaess of the new st=ft Also, SB 802 sets forth a kogthy,detested sad cumbersome prooed=that must be followed before an action is filed against any party Burt allegedly=Uftted to tate claimed defer. The burden of this procedttce falls largely on the builder,and the time periods are strictly conswied. In my mgmience,many builders are not aware of wliat these prooedures are- SB 800 purports to address the rductaaee of theinst rWC industW to provide liability ==cc to California develope n end oondomimum builders end their design professionals,eou t cors,and subcomutors. it is unclear if representatives ofthe insawce&dastry participated in negotiating the provisions of SB 800: The reality is that SB 800 is extremely hardifui to the interests of liability instuw and MAY or o��ra cA Fa mlwa tiA Smw Arra CA IJrafe,aco414ro Aa 16N111%CUr"peat — r � �30 achment 5 W. Steve Putts Steven D.Putts AIA&Associates May 4,2405 Page 2 discourage them from writing business in Califamia.Plaintiffs by artful pleading may nil*most of the substantive benefits that SB 840 would extend to defendants. Fmlt=,SB 800 may radically increase the complexity of cvnscntction defect litigation and accordingly increase the cost of providing a defense. Even with the perceived benefit of SB 800 to developers, build_=and design professionals,condos are still problematic because: Condominium projects are often Mighty leveraged financially. Condomiaiuta buyers are often unsophisticated and many buyers have never owned a unit in a shared multi-family community be*m Tbey beoome part of a homeowner association in charge of upkeep and maintenance who are not eager to pay for the full roge of upkeep services needed to maintain the shared exteriaas,roofs,utilities and common grounds. e Developers are often more interested in saving dollars than building high quality projects and frequently scrimp on materials and forego what they deem `optional"design services, such ss construction observation. . • Attorneys often actively solicit homeowner associations as:patcatial clients and often urge$nese associations to provide a very critical review of the complex in a search to Sod defects with their buildings and grounds.If the developer scrimped on quaUty,it probably won't take:long to find a reason to file a demand. • Once a complaint or lawsuit is fi14 the developer may be nowhere to be found. Many developers set up an LLC to build and sdl a single project Once the last unit sells.Ire oorporation dissolves.Similarly,if the low-bid contractor hired to construct the condo project has dissolved,gone bankrupt or-has otherwise disappeared once the pwjed is completed,the only 4 c cp p o c k M tcmainiag are those of the design team • In Californ*cozen*most Co=ctors and subconteactm cannot obtain General Liability coverage for multi-unit residential projects. A few developers have purchased`wrap-up"policies to provide this coverage,but because this type ofpolicy is finely expensive,it is highly Moely that marry projects are being built by uninsured const uction teems. Uufm=ately,this makes the insured design team a bigger tncL 3 -31 chment 5 Mr. Steve Pults Steven D.Pults AIA&Associaoes May 4,2005 Page 2 The impact of SB 800 is still nncicat to the insurance industry and,because insurance . companies have shelled out huge auras due to claims involving construction defects on condominium projects in the past,it will take some time before they are eager to provide coverage.In today's market,with limited capachyy,hWm nates and an emphasis on profthility rather than market share,many i mows can afford to just say no to condos. Whether the new law will convince h=mce companies that.it is safe to re-enter Califernia-sad its litigious climate-remeins to be seen.Since SB 800 became law,little has changed as the number of insurers valliug to cover high-density projects remains extremely Iow. The SB 8QI legislation may help over the long run,lint tlua c are no tangible AM that it is helping yet. Until drat happens,multi-family residential will still be considered to be an extremely high risk projem Steve,I hope e>iat this tatbraw ion has helpedto ctacify the ern cent position of Insurers relative to multi-family projects. Pies se conwa are if you have soy questians. Sincerely, Sheryl ITWbols Account Executive Std jm 3 -3 �- Ia�III�pIIPIk9lll Attachment 6 Vll l INIsAnluisOBISPO 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 multi-family 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 mi6imum 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.. ® The City of San Luis Obispb is committed to include the disabled in a8 of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(865 781-7410. 3 � Akc 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 fledges or otherlandscaping. If`you have questions, please contact Tyler Corey at (805) 781-7169. Sincerely, 4AP PamelaRic Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SL-O 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 It YSAn Attachment 7 �V laI I1PA"Nill Dluisoolsw 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. © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �., Teleconirrunications Device for the Deaf(805)7fi44io. _3 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 may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologists 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. 3 -3 � ARC 180.04 Attachment 7 Page 3 1. The applicant shall satisfy the projects Inclusionary Housing requirement prior to occupancy of the buildings. Z. 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. 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. 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 37 ARC 180-04 Attachment 7 Page 4 forms are available in the City ClerWs office, or on the City's website (www.s11ocitY.o(0)-. 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, pi I ease contact Tyler Corey at 781-7169. Sincerely, e4 Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner Community Development ca 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 ARC Minutes �. March 14,2005 (Special Meeting) Attachment 8 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 he 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 treat t of building details and site access. Commr. Loves moved to .continue em to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant. Seconded by Com-M. 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 Project 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 the property. 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. - 3--3 9 ARC Minutes ? March 14,2005 (Special Meeting) Attachment 8 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 staff's 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 carred on a 5 : 1 vote. 1.74_Suburban Road ARC5 —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 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 ._ 3 -yb • ft ARC Minutes - Attachment 9 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) Associate 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 pol.iey issue regarding the site plan including detached buildings, based on the ARC'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: Commr 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 14"' 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. 3 —yi! 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 encouraging more consolidated building types for units in the R-4 zone and direction for attached buildings provided with the Council's review of the site rezoning. While the Commission understood staffs 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 proiect with the _seven detached buildings for proposed units. Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Cominrs. 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 & 777 Casa Street; 1010 MurrayAvenue and MU Deseret .Place.. ARC 234-04; Conceptual review of Siena 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 ra 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 Commission. 3 �-y Attachment 10 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; R4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Continued from June 6, 2005) (Tyler Corey) Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of the project based on Commission direction provided at the June 6, 2005 meeting. She noted that this project had been to the ARC on two prior occasions and involved over four hours of discussion. 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 ARC's 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 6"' meeting with specific direction to return to the ARC.with a recommendation for approval, based on the refinement of ARC Minutes June 20,2005 - Attachment 10 Page 2 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 with the General Plan and the R-4 zoning district. He noted that the current regulations and policies 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 proiect as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commr.Boudreau AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Root, Wilhelm, Howard, Smith, Lopes and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 3550 Broad Street. ARC PA 86-05; Review of a public art proposal for Cole tors; C-S zone; Cole Motors, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore). Commr. stepped down from participation on this kern due to a potential conflict of interest beca he designed the art piece. Senior Planner Pam icci presented the staff report, recommending the Commission find that the proposed ork meets the City's Guidelines for Public Art in Private Projects, based on findings d subject to conditions which she outlined. Allen Root, project artist, describ the art sculpture entitled `The Family Tree", and explained its design concept, He note at the natural rust color would eventually bleed out onto the sidewalk and that the seatin urfaces of the benches would be oiled teak. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on whether the proposed location for the art, i tont of the main showroom entry on the north side of the building, was consistent with th RC criterion calling for art pieces that are "easily visible or accessible form a public right way." Commr. Lopes was concerned that the artwork location was too far from public vie u 7y ~' Filing Fee: $10000' Attachment 11 Raid. - -- R wA JUN �Z 3 205 JCmy of SM lU1S OBISPO ro SECT=a - - SIA CITY CLERK_ APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELL4N7'INFORMA71ON Ken Hamman CAO.City of SLO.990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 -- - Name Mailing Address and Zip Code - 781-7114 781-7109 Phone, Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code TWO Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1,Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), i hereby appeal the decision of the: Architectural Review(:ommission (Name of Offer,C mmittee or Commission decision being appealed) - 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered; June 20.2005 3., The application or project Was entitled: ARC 180-04 at 1231 Laurel Lane 4. 1 discussed the matter with the follow"City staff member. dot applicable[see SIA Muni.Code 42.4&090D on - - - - ($teff Member's Name and Depaaztrnerrt) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,'when was it heard and by whom: NO - - - SECTIONS REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actloWs you are appealing and why you believe the Council wild consider your appeal. Include what you have that supports your appeal You may attach adbWbW pages;g necessary. 77w farm continues cn Me other side Page 1 of 3 3 - y5 Attachment 11 Rawpon forAppeel contlnrred On June 1 2004 Counal members expressed strong preferences dirediv to the aoMicant that In de- signing a residential pnNect,detached units should be avoided and the design should instead be MOM cOnSistent with the'Yonmw wale style typical of R-4 development(apartment style,not single4ar*house style). The CfVs General Plan requires that R-4 development prin'wly be attadled. The recent exception to this rule(Including one on Augusta Street)have involved tail detached sbuctures with a common driveway,and have resulted in less than satisWory design. (see attached letter to applicant) SECTION 4: APPEU ANT'' RESPOIIfSIBlL:17Y "`' '"' - r: The San Luis Obispq ► . 0 -V qs:pubfic pa The ln ihp i tixemi t : encourages ap fomes of d":in4dvemetit'"Flovwever'du'pta aCesi.: : . COundl consideration Of an.appeal,indudJXr : tib6c' . dll lMe itaintng planning application orproj .are subject-to a' ".e. • : �';> 1( tac+rNllyhthe appeal form �lA.�•• .::y�yluf4�,u'i:.• agm Your dghtto exercise-an appy cQ:mes' .,:• . .J.' t�Gaa<4f°youtae v appeal,please understand that-it)�be heard, . . .' t(tis:form. : mntyaiU be •ttobfred In writing of the exact date your 40poal•vffbiN' tlil. You r9i;INoirr representative will be MgMto attend the piitilic.#re case. Your testirrony is GrNW;to�0 rt�r9 A continuance may'# rorrted urid�9r:certain and;unusi;al circumstances. if yom:fipel you need to request a cotttinuadce,,yoU must.�your..,_. irt.!9tfjtl(?�, a C�Y'ty'IeI ,��t}a�e advised that 3f•your requestfiW continuarxe is-idceiv� §appah( C�cl to afro,the . Counca'I may not be able.tq, fhe requ f cc tltil' t'S d, i questY,uai t rtoe'; does not guarantee drat u.t grivrtecli stmt 1a� torr the L�yr . henebYagnee to appear and/Oy"s01 8Q: : lairs pubUc hearfiiy � 'G� . , ., .. •� iii �6o to the fm 1)/Ipp '- meds.. .:• : ft-.- j�wm _dft ftgq►$100 to appealoft 40 l�"a to a 1 Ginr�•.: �a 1?MW:' This Item Is hereby adwidared for July 19.2005 C CityAttarney City AdmhisdaNve Ot(ser Dopertawn head — `IQl1�t�tlt lll� Advhwy Body Chakpwam KA Page 2 of 3 e� 3 - y� Attachment 11 Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sections: 120.010 Tide. 1.20.020 Right to appeal. 120.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 120.040 Hearing-Notice. 120.050 Hearing-Appellant to showy cause-Council's determination final. 120.010 Title. This chapter shad be(mown as the"Appeals Procedure`for the city. (Prior code§ 1400) 120.020 Right to appeal. A. Except where an appeals procedure Is otherwise.specificallyset forth in this 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 Trade by any city official, If the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of such license, permit or entitlement or the detemnination of such administrative decision Involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exerdsed 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 spedfic grounds for the appeal B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision Trade 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 odder 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 Irmlve the exercise of admir*ftative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provWons of this code, whether the admirmstrative dedsion Involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a Oconee,penrdt,entitlement or arty other eve decision.(Ord. 1044§1. 1986.prior code§1401) 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal- The appeknt shall file a notice of appeal with the city dark within ten 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 ode Shap apply whenever an appeal procedure Is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior coda § 1402) 120.040 Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal In its proper form,the city dark shall place the matter on the council agenda. Except in cases of emergency, when the council may determine the matter fir, or where state law prescribes a ddfetent appeal process,the dark shall set the matter for hearing at the next reasonably available council rneeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city derk. The dry deck shad cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior th such hearing,unless such notice is waived In writing by the applicant.(Ord 1252§1,1994:prior code§1403) 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the ground specified in the nolloe of appeal why the action appealed from should not be approved The sound may continue the hearing from time to time, and Its fundings on the appeal shall be foal and conducive in the matter.(Prior code§1404) Page 3 of 3 3 -q7 L Attachment 11 cityo sAn LUIS OBISPO 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,located 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 resulted 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 CRY of San Lars Owwo is corm w to include the dsawd in an of its services.programs and activities. Tele=wwx ications Devise for Ute Deaf(a05)781-7410. Attachment 11 r and what happened during the June 1,2004, meeting has determined in 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 pro1�• Sincerely yours, C; i Ken fbimpianC%� City Administrative Officer cc: City Council Architectural Review Commission Staff distribution Attachments: 1. June 1,2004 Council minutes 2. Appeal Attachment 11 ` City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday,June 1,2004,5:45 P.M. Carol Florence,Oasis Associates,representing Coast 13MW/Nissan,presented a brief overview of the sculpture and the desire of the applicant. She also distributed a letter from Catharine King Norton,San Luis Obispo Arts Council,showing their support(see fetter on file In the City Clerk's Office). Jim Jacobson.artist,discussed the details of the art work and the merits in making it sixessiblus to pedestrian traffic. Mavor Romero opened the public hearing:. Andrew Carter.San Luis Obispo,spoke In support of the CAO recommendation. He voiced concern regarding vandalism lithe art work was to be placed on the comer. Mavor Romero closed the public hearing. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Schwartz to adopt Resolution No.9570(2004 Series) upholding the appeal,and upholding tile—Art Jury's iecommendatlon to allow the public art at the proposed location in.front of the building subject to findings and conditions;motion carried 5:0. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE.FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY AT-1231 LAUREL LANE(GP/RIER 12143) Deputy Director Community Development.Whlsenand explained that this General Plan amendment urns the first In it wiles and that H Council approved this tecommendatlon In concept,all General Plan amendments would be brought back on 7%6/04 for final passage. Associate Planner Corey presented the staff report Tim WoodUa.Putts&Associates and Senior Architect for the project,answered questions train the CoundL Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Andrew Carter.San Luis Obispo,voiced support for the projecL Mavor Romero dosed the is h Council recommended that staff snare with the Plenning Commission and the ARC duet arty project design for this particular property should be apartment style structures rather then separate structures. ACTION-. Moved by Seth_1MuQrciland to adopt Resolution No.OM (2004 Series) oonoeptuaUy approving a Mitigated Negative Declaratlon of einlronrnantei Impact (ER 121.03)and amendment to flue City's Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood Commercial(C4Q to High Density Residential(R- 4)t which directs staff to Tatum the projectto the Council at the July 6,2004 regular meeting,to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project;motion carried 51L 3 -50 all of sAn luiOWSPO c Hnacnment 12 ac; MORN990 Palm Street, San Wis 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 hesidential 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 LJ" %CU 3450 Broad Street, Suite 106 Pamela Rica, All P San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Senior Planner Community Development Bonita Terra 6050 York Mountain Road Templeton, CA 93465-5800 OThe city of San Luis obispo is committed to Include the disabled In all of its services,programs and activities. Teleoomrrwnications Device for the Deaf(SW- 781-7410. Attachment 13 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Tyler Corey,Associate Planner(781-7169}Zt,�,- 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 comer 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 June20, 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 10 & June 6") 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 Summary Address: 1231 Laurel Lane Applicant: Paul Nagy Representative: Steven D.Pints&Associates Zoning: RAF(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 15th ARC report(Attachment 4). ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lane,: Attachment 13 Page 2 Project Description See the June 6 h 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 staff's 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. Staffs Analysis: 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. Staffs Analtsis 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 I�gh-Density Residential land 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 Staffs refined findings are detailed below. ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lane) Attachment 13 Page 3 Zoning Regglations 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 4-7 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 COIVMENTS 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. 3 -Sy Z�: _ . ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel Lane- 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. 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. 6. The project is consistent with the Chapter 53 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 specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's 3 -55 �� ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel lane) 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, 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:. 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 Plan,Volume III,Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal or any subsequent planning applications)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 stonmwater 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 sttuet 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 Tares 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. ,I ARC 180-04(1231 Laurel L .. ( Attachment 13. an 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 tiring the property into compliance with the City's Residential Condominium Development Standards. ATTACHMENTS G:koo MAROARCIARC I&MM Na&A,RC 1U04 grt(6-20)da Atta.hment 14 Draft Resolution "A" 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 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 Palm Street; San Luis Obispo; California, on September 6, 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 apartment project in the R=4 zone at 1231 Laurel Lane, application No. ARC 180=04. �-75d Atta:hmerit 19 Resolution No. (2.005 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 day of September, 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell,,City Attorney 3 �59 Atta.hment is Draft Resolution"B" RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMSSION'S 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 R-4 zone, based on findings and subject to con_, tions 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 Palm Street,. San Luis Obispo, California, on September 6, 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 R-4 zone at 1231 Laurel Lane; application No: ARC 180-04. 3-42 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 6`h day of September, 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney