HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1993, 2 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PROJECT APPLICATION NO. ARC 10-93 - A REQUE IIIN�I�IIIIVIIIIIIIII II M NDATE:
C.co san tins oBIspo 4-.26-99 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's approval of Project
Application No. ARC 10=93 - a request to add a one-bedroom
apartment to a site with a one-bedroom house located on the
southeast corner of Pismo and Toro Streets (1203 Pismo Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the
Architectural Review Commission's action to approve ARC 10-93 .
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
The applicants want to add a new building containing a one-bedroom
apartment and a carport to a site with an existing house at the
corner of Pismo and Toro Streets. The Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) first reviewed the project on February 16, 1993
and granted it schematic approval.
On March 15, 1993 , the ARC granted the project final approval with
several items to be approved by staff during project plan check
(see attached ARC approval letter) . In approving the project, the
Commission felt that the applicants had responded to previous
direction by lowering the building height, changing the roof pitch
and modifying windows and landscaping.
On March 24 , 1993 , an appeal of the project approval was filed and
signed by 21 neighbors. The appeal statement recommends that the
new building be single-story and raises concerns with density,
.setbacks, overlook and views. The ARC reports prepared for the
project are attached. The reports provide background information
and describe staff's assessment of how the architect's project
design addresses scale and compatibility issues raised by the
neighbors.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal and denying ARC
10-93 based on findings.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached: Draft Resolutions
Appeal to City Council. received 3-24-93
ARC approval letter dated 3-18-93
3-15-93 & 2-16-93 ARC minutes
3-15-93 & 2-16-93 ARC report and attachments
- Denying Appeal
GResolution A (Denying Appeal)
RESOLUTION NO. (1993. Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION APPROVING A ONErBEDROOM APARTMENT ADDITION
TO A SITE LOCATED AT 1203 PISMO STREET
(ARC. 10-93)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the staff report, public testimony, the
appellants' statements and the Architectural Review Commission's
action, denies the appeal based on the following findings:
1. The height and mass of the proposed building will not
significantly change the street character of the block or
adversely affect neighbors' views or privacy.
2. The specific design of the building was modified based on
direction given by the ARC to reduce overall height and to
prevent overlook issues.
SECTION 2. Action. Application No. ARC 10-93 is hereby
approved, with the items included in the ARC follow-up letter dated
3-18-93 to be approved by staff.
On motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
�i the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1993 .
as
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity Ad inistrative Officer
f
t to n
a-�
B - Upholding Appeal
i�
Resolution B (Upholding Appeal)
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION APPROVING A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT ADDITION
TO A SITE LOCATED AT 1203 PISMO STREET
(ARC 10-93)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the staff report, public testimony, the
appellants' statements and the Architectural Review Commission's
action, upholds the appeal based on the following findings:
1. The height and mass of the proposed building will
significantly change the street character of the block and
adversely affect neighbors' views and privacy.
2. Changes made to the specific design of the building based
on direction given by the ARC do not adeqautely address
overlook issues.
SECTION 2. Action. Application No. ARC 10-93 is hereby
denied.
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 , 1993.
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity Admi istrative Officer
1 Att rn
Cityo $An WIS OBISPO '
•
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tide I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigriedherebyappealsfrom thedecislonof ARC , Item #ARCMI-10-93
rendered on March 11;- 1993 which decision consisted of the following 0.9. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
As referenced above, the ARC approved construction of a tft-story,
one bedroom apartment with an attached garage at 1203 Pismo St.
Historically, the neighbors have objected to this project each time
it came before the ARC (in 1991 & 1993) .
The neighbors want the project scaled down to a single story studio
or apartment.
See attached grounds .for appeal.
l
The undersigned discussed the.decislon being appealed with:
on
DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: }w ��
.t r /
q;30 4 ht game
RECE.'ED
eprese e
MAR 2 4 1993
CIN CLER Mciress
SAN LUIS OSISPO.
� 7
Phone
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for. / Copy to Administrative Offloer
Copy to the-following department(s):
March 22, 1993
i
San Luis Obispo City Council
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: Appeal of the decision of the ARC rendered on
March 15, 1993 regarding 1203 Pismo Street,
San Luis Obispo (ARCMI-10-93)
Dear City Council Members:
We are appealing the ARC approval of the above referenced
project because we believe that the project should be scaled
down to a single story studio or apartment unit on a concrete
slab with an 8' plate line and a 6-12 roof slope with open
parking. This type of project would be more appropriate for
this small, substandard nonconforming lot.
It has been shown (see inclosed drawing presented to the
owner, architect, & ARC at the beginning of the review
process) that this structure could easily be a single story
apartment that would provide the nearly the same living area
as the project approved by the ARC.
Historically, the neighbors have objected to this project
each time it came before the ARC (see attachments) .
Specifically:
1. The ARC approved project allows the density of the lot to
be at maximum. This is unusual. This maximum density allows
hardly any outdoor living space.
The lot size at 1203 Pismo is only 4786 sq.ft. . The addition
including the carport is 1174 sq.ft. . The existing house is
only 888 sq.ft. . This makes the project 45% larger than the
existing house. Both buildings will cover nearly 43% of the
small lot.
Because this lot is so small, setbacks drastically reduced,
and the height allowance increased, the building size is
magnified.
2. The unusual variances that were granted approving
setbacks of 3' along the side adjacent lot line and 5' along
the rear and front/sidewalk allow the project to be built too
close to neighboring houses and too close to the street.
These setbacks encroach on the adjacent neighbors privacy and
space and also create a situation where the project's living -
space is only 51- 6 1/2' from a public sidewalk.
3 . The height of the project with the bedroom/loft upstairs
will cause it to look down into three (3) neighboring
backyards intruding on these property owner's privacy not
only in their backyards but actually within the living areas
of their homes.
4. Finally, the height of the project will obstruct public
and private views of San Luis Mountain and the Santa Luica
Mountain Range.
We are proposing a single story solution that is equal in
square footage and equal in use to the ARC approved project.
This single story solution would mitigate the concerns of all
of the neighbors while providing the owners with a usable and
livable project.
Sincerely,
J10 /�viircu+nor 115/ 1�,' uc�on S �.
/Z/J � ICHoA
7, �
% s% i�3� %c� Ste. `'��-�•-L.
• LCIL
e��VLL-I
7--
117( (5,1'- ?T 6 L C 4-7,t;ccC-Z kj t
S L4" ./,_/Cj"'/i� •' �G'�J (C'l'iC-�,/�c� / 'J"1(,(%1:.Gt 7LF�L-
l /
IllIi ill jil �il;;�'Iii�Iil'ipd� i.i•,i. CityOf lui�SAn 0%lonispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
March 18, 1993
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Collier
660 Peach �—103
San Luis Obispo, CA 93''01
SUBJECT: ARCMI 10-93: 1203 Pismo Street
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Collier:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 15, 1993, granted final
approval to ti-ie project with the Ioliovwing to be approved by Jtaii.
a. type of pavers for uncovered parkin° space driveway;
b. eastern dormer to be set back a minim of 1.3 feet and cropper like other building
dormers:
C. entry door to the multi-purpose room to be shielded;
d. storage area either be eliminated or incorporated into the western side of the multi-
purpose building:
e. modify the street elevation to provide further relief; and
f. move the trash area to the interior of the site.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten days
of the date of this letter. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of
the Commission.
Pi�aJe :ice':.,
Consznictlon ha_ not started, unless the comrni5slOn uesiunated a dinerent time period. On
request, the Com.muniry Development Director may grant an extension of up to one year,
but Pot greater than two years beyond the original date of .ARC approval.
Minutes of this meetins will be sent to you as soon as they are available.
If you have anv -_-_tions, please contact Judith Lautner at 751-7166.
Sincerely,
oe
R" or�i�a�Id G. senand
Development Review Manager
cc: Barry Lcranz Uillians
T72 C,::. S-.-. LcS OZ-5:0 �S C3r.Md IeC to inUcCe 1?e :-sa::e: :n all cf :s serv::2s. or_Sra'r1s anC av:wzies.
tr 2ir__""':.:-.�ca O.^S De..Ce f:r :'2 Deaf 01171 77' --*Q �_�
ARC Minutes
March 15, 1993
Page 4
3. ARCNII 10-93: 1203 Pisi to S.'reet. A request -.'Or final review' of plans to add a
detached one-bedroom unit to a site containing an existing one-bedroom unit; R-2
zone: Bruce & Myla Collier, applicants.
Commrs. Combrink and Sievertson stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Pam Ricci. Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
co--:
SSIG.-I Zra.a ii-61 app.O�al.
Barry Williams, architect, responded to the staff report and discussed the project's
density and site coverage. He reviewed the streetscape elevation with the ARC, pointing
out that the proposed building is actually lower in height than the one-story house next
door. He 'e't the project was consistent with the rhythm and scale of the neigtborhood.
He discussed the height charges and window locations in terms of overlook issues. He
wanted to use tuir block Instead of inter-locking paters for the driveway and ur:coyered
par'King Space.
�•IGllatl-.'G:1 l_aV'el .i U�_'U as .�11 r ..L C.:I� L�'l,J.:L LI�.0 L:..0 (i LI.i.♦ 1:..�. a.L L711
wall facing Toro Street. Mr. Williams responded that he thought he could rnake changes
to accommodate the suggestion.
Geri Fonten, Buchon Street resident, felt the project proposed to cover too much of the
r e�arG.Ld C, C -_.oi Ce'.e.Gp:::c: ...dGe CG:::.T.:. I-..a— .'_S :.C: ... T�.9
Bruce Collier, applicant, stated that they have attempted to address the neighbors'
concerrs.
Comr:.r. Homer f-1t tri- p7 r, ed 1„'iIGiP,o eicht was COnSiStent with ih- P.el-ilborilOOd
and that the applicant had re,;}O1-1c10 i-i�_ c01i11::11;>i0n s Cireciioih.
Commr. Gates felt the project had improved and will be tolerable to the neighbors. She
suggested removing the dormer on the easterly elevation. She questioned the creation of
shadow lines on the front elevation. She thought the door to the multi-purpose room
looked like a front door to a house and asked the applicant to consider a door with more
character. She suggested moving the trash area back to the utility area.
ARC Minutes
March 15. 1993 --
Page 5
Com .r. Illingworth was concerned with the appearance of the storage area from the
street. He thought it looked like an open garage. rather than a carport.
Chairman Underwood felt the neighbors' input has resulted in an improved project. He
suggested using a recessive -color for the storage area.
Tile commission, architect. and audience discussed cropping and setting back the dormer.
Commr. Homer discussed his concerns with turf pavers during a drought. He thought
the idea would be great if the pavers were properly maintained.
Commr. Illingworth moved to grant final approval to the project with the following to be
approved by staff:
a. type of pavers for uncovered parking space driveway;
b. eastern dormer m be set back a rnirirn of 1.5 feet and crorper tike other building
dormers;
C. entry door to the miulti-purpose room, to be shielded;
LA stor awe ar23 either be eliiunated or incorporated into the v:estern side of t1he
multi-purpose building;
111 DrkD iue kLrZiler relief; arll-
f. move the trash area to the interior of the site.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
AYEE_.
NOES: None
ABSEI\7: Cooper, Combrink, Sievertson
The motion oassed.
CO`INIE\T & DISCUSSION
The Commission thanked Madi Gates for her commitment and long-term service as a
member of the ARC. New Commissioner Ron Reiger, who observed in the audience,
was introduced and welcomed.
�-II
ARC Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 2
and required that the parking lot lighting be reviewed by staff to ensure that nearby
residences are not subjected to glare.
Commr. Sievertson seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Sievertson, Cor, brink, Homer, Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cooper, Gates
The motion passed.
Commr. Cooper arrived at the meeting. Commr. Gates returned to the meeting.
2. ARCMI 10-93: 1203 Pisa o Street. A request for final review of the add;i'on of a
detached one-bedroom unit to a site containing an existing one-bedroom unit; R-2
zone; Bruce and Mvla Collier, applicants.
CC^y -.,. and C='Dr_nk Stepped Gown, due t0 a Con.- .C7 0: i-teresr.
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
commission grant schematic or final approval.
B_rz_ �.....ieCt `� __eG t0 .'e St3� *onn-. a2u ...."t^CLC. 'e c^7ca_.t= t0
the con ussion. He indicated that he w'as the architect or th.' previo=us project on this
property that was never approved. He indicated that the applicants are in the process of
purchasing the site. He showed the changes made from the previous project by pointing
out the differences in a drawing of the new superimposed on the old. He tried to follow
the commission's direction from that previous project. He added a loft with a low
c:iling. He noted that the roof ine was needed for height, but he kept it as low as
possible. Tne multi purpose room shown on the plans would be used as a laundry area
and workroom for firs. Collier's weaving loom. He felt it would not be east' to convert
this room into a bedroom because there was not enough head height through the
interior. He stated that the applicants had no intention to convert the unit. He noted
this unit would have the same detailing as the existing' house. He also indicated that he
had discussed the project with the neighbors. He submitted an overlay of the project
design over a sketch of the next-door neighbor's house and displayed a comparison of
floor areas with the next-door house. He noted that.the height of the house is actually
ARC Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 3
19 ft.., 6 in., not 20 ft., 8 in, as shown on the plans. He indicated that the loft prevents
the house from further spreading down the lot. He also showed a display of the
difference between a once-stJ-i des:;n ants the 'of proposal (using the sa'P root pi-ch).
He displayed how the project would probably look with perspective. He noted that the
streetyards on the block all are smaller than now required. He noted that the owners
need the bedroom for their son, then later to rent out. He felt that existins views would
not be affected any more than by other homes. There would be no overlook problems
because of the high windows. He noted that the total square footage of the unit would
be 620 square feet because of the ceiling heights.
D, ce Co`--, appliC�. L, GiCaf�d t%at L� re' o'.'ed fne COn:'.nz C:es .Torn --� sal__
and will purchase the site and will live there. He. indicated he would record an
agreement to limit the bedrooms on the site.
Barry Williams indicated that the project meets parking requirements. He felt that a
carport does not preseP.t the problems that 2 gaiage does. He ind1Cat 1 that the Trash
enclosure would be located by the kitchen near the stoop. He indicated that the open
space can be used by both units. He wanted to save the existing hedge except where the
driveway breaks through. He noted t:-at the colors are intended to be the same as the
existing house.
Sherry Forton, 1216 Buchon, opposed the project. SL-;,- appreciated the Iact that the
project had been scaled down, but felt the height and bulk of the building made it seem
much larger than the existing house and its nearness rness to the street emphazed its bulk.
She pointed out photographs showing how the project would affect the neighborhood.
S1—:eG:G_. . _'ue c a Jc_e C0 ':d i SLS :-.-*it :Lci j_ C•2Ca_sZ
other hornes in the ..rea were :.•o _toe mean: tha: .. -,.ould be okay to buld a rwo-sm—
house here.
Dorothy Jean Warren, 14'_'. Toro Street, said that the windows would look into her
bedroom.
Comm�r. Cooper lnnuicated inat ne was aware of problems with th,e ..rst submittal and
felt these plans sho'•� a marked improvenent. He noted that he has seen Victorian
miniatures happen around the city and felt the house would need to be another style, if
it is to be significantly reduced in height. He felt this submittal came close to looking
like a one story. He felt a lot of effort has been put into the design to make the project
work. He was concerned with the closeness of the building to the sidewalk. He
suggested raising the window's a few more inches and changing the roof pitch slightly.
��. ARC Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 4
Commr. Homer was concerned about the pavers and the fact that the plants wall die and
weeds would grow in to replace them. He suggested using a different type of paver. He
rioted that Brisbane box trees have caus-.d problar s and suggesting tnia_.rwo London
plane trees instead. He indicated that while he understood the need for adequate living
space, he also understood the neighbors' concerns.
Commr. Illingworth agreed with Commr. Cooper. He felt that the overlook problem
could be much worse since this was an R-2 neighborhood. He noted that he didn't
support the first proposal. He felt that reducing the structure to one-story wouldn't gain
a lot. He thought the proposed solution fit in with the neighborhood. He didn't know
how to deal with th;, view blockage concern.
Commr. Gates said it seemed like the new apartment was comparable in scale with the
existing house, and the site seemed overbuilt. . She would prefer the apartment to be one
IeveI and felt it would be easier for the son and grandparents rather than having them go
uo and down stairs. She suggested the utility space be reduced, the new unit be moved
towards the existing house, and the dining area improved. She thought the attic area
might be used for the loom. She also understood the neighbors' concerns. She could
not support the project. V
)✓=..c'. Co:.:�r rot.;'. 7 d.:d rot ,%-nn- to S..' ? Q4-d fQ-iG C'
because his house would end up being boxed in.
Chairman Underwood felt that the house was shrunken in scale and that's why the
Victoria proportions don't.work. He felt that the apartment did not seem like a one-
=:o- . 1;'e .._:ei .-_. :` e plat: Shows t:.at a one-story house ca, be done and
SuggeStcq I— the 2ppiiC2rt COriSidei SCaliri� d0��� the house t0 One dory. He not:d that
the loft does not take advantage of the views and that the space is not utilized as
effectively as it could be. He thought that proposed colors and detailing were good but
that window placement was awkward.
Barry Williarns stated that the two-story house was proposed because of volume and the
eCOriOmy Oi Space. He Ieit t;at the loft had the advantage Of iQOklrig dow i into the
li%ing area. He also felt that small units need more volume. He indicated that the
bedroom was not designed for view's. He r-'it that a ! in 12 pitch would work for the
roof.
Commr. Cooper moped to grant schematic approval to the project, vi'
h direction to
I
.2-A
ARC Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 5
1. Lower the height of the building by at least 2 feet, possibly by a minor change in
the roof pitch, reducing the bedroom size, and lowering the plate height:
2. Raise the upper windows and change the Toro Street windows to double-hung;
3. Modify the landscaping by increasing its height, changing the type of street tree
proposed, and adding another tree in front of the new apartment.
Commr. Illingworth seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Illingworth, Ho:_er
NOES: Gates, Underwood
ABSENT: Combrinlc, Sievertson
The motion passed.
[ 1
bIIN LZ'ES
The ��,inutes of January 19, 1993 were approved as written.
COMMENT :� DISCUSSION
Chairperson Underwood noted that he had attended the City Council budget workshop,
and found it an interesting process.
Commissioners and staff discussed the appeal of a project that was granted schematic
approval by the commission. The project is a new church on Johnson Avenue, just north
of General Hospital (LDS Church). Discussion was on the use of the appeal process and
on the complexi-,, of riparian guidelines and laws.
Commissioner Combrink asked about the Chamber of Commerce's suQsestion that the
Ciry have an economic adviser, and a general discussion of the chamber proposal
followed. Commissioner Cooper asked if the state allows cities to adopt economic
i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMIS,SLPN STAFF REPORT ITEM x,;L
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 15, 1993
FILE NUMBER: ARC 10-93
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1203 Pismo Street
SUBJECT: Apartment to be built on lot that contains a residence, on the southeast corner of Pismo
and Toro Streets.
SUNT tNMARY RECON-LN-MEN-DATION
Grant final approval.
BACKGROU\D
Situation
The applicants want to add a one-bedroom apartment to a site that contains a one-bedroom dwelling.
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) first reviewed this project on February 16, 1993, and
granted schematic approval with direction. The plans have been revised and the applicants now request
final approval.
Data Summary
Address: 1203 Pismo Street
Applicant/Property owners: Bruce and Mvla Collier
Representative: Barr; Lorl—nz Williams associates
Zoning: R-2
General plan: Medium-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Addition of small residence to site.
Project action deadline: August 21, 1993
Site description
The site is a trapezoidal-shaped lot, 37.51'-wide at Pismo Street. narrowing to 30.56' at the "rear".
The lot slopes down approximately nine inches in 140 feet, from Pismo to the rear. It contains an older
house and a small one-car Qara_e.
The neighborhood consists of older, well-kept homes and apartments, with buildings close together from
lot to lot. and many homes built close to the street. A variety of styles is apparent. althoush modest
colonial and Spanish styles seem to predominate.
Proiect descrintion
The project is the demolition of a garage, which sits near two property lines at the rear of the lot, and
construction of a one-bedroom apartment (with a loft bedroom) and carport, with storage and utility
— rooms between the two. The carport would cover two cars, while a third parking space is to be located
next to the carport.
-0-h
ARC 10-93
1203 Pismo Street
Page 2
EVALUATION J
1. Commission direction focussed on lowering the height of the building. The schematic approval
was granted with direction to reduce the height of the building, raise the base of the upper windows,
change the Toro Street windows to doublehung, and modify the landscaping (see minutes, included
in this packet). Revised plans address all of these areas (see letter from Barry Williams, attached).
2. The new building is lower. The ARC asked that the building height be reduced by at least two
feet. By reducing the plate line and changing the roof pitch from 8:12 to 6.5:12, the height of the
building has been reduced to 18'-3". The loft bedroom has effectively been reduced in size as a
result of these changes. The height of the building shown on plans previously reviewed by the ARC
was 19'-8", which was a reduction from the 20'-8" shown on the original submittal (and mistakenly
written in the previous staff report). The height has therefore been reduced 1.5' from schematic
plans, and 2.5' from original plans. The orientation of the building and the reduced height should
limit the impacts of the new building on the existing neighborhood.
3. The sill height of the rear window is five feet, and Toro windows are changed. The window
height has been raised for this window, which allows light to enter the room but makes viewing out
awkward. The project will have minimal effect on neighbor privacy. The two windows on the
Toro Street elevation are to be doublehung. and proportionately similar to windows on the existing
house.
�. Landscaping has changed. The commission asked that landscaping be changed by increasing its
height, changing the type of street tree (from Brisbane box to Landon plane), and adding another
tree in front of the apartment. Landscape plans show three London plan: trees on the Toro Street
side, as requested, although the representative notes that the street tree on Pismo has been removed
because of concerns about obstructing views within the "corner cut-off" area. Plans originally
showed the Pismo tree to the left of the sidewalk. but adjacent neighbors objected to the view
blockage this might cause for them. Staff notes that trees are not automaticaiiy excluded from being
planted within the ;0' corner cut-off area. The applicant needs to ,t ork with the City Arborist to
determine an appropriate location for a street free on Pismo.
The proposed fern trees and abeiia add height to the planting pian, and should function well next
to the building. Lower shrubs round out the planting plan. Existing planting near the existing house
is proposed to remain. The plans are consistent with ARC direction.
5. Pavers are changed. One commission was concerned about the use of grasscrete for the parking
area paving, saying that in this area grass usually dies in these pavers. The plans now indicate
concrete n�vers in hern-Rbone patiern. T'-.:s change si,ould ^e at.ractiv- �:':d f iiciio^:al.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This project was not routed to other departments, as there did not appear to be any issues that would
affect them.
ARC 10-93
1203 Pismo Street
Page 3
Attached:
vicinity map
letter from neighbor on Pismo street tree
letter from Barry Williams - March 2, 1993
In packet:
plans
At meetins:
color board (intended to match existing residence)
photographs and exhibits showing changes and effects on neighboring buildings
r
tier\ O \;,• /_
V r �
91 \
b
1l� ••�• � 2jr \ Q � \
.40
10 40
Orr
C �
F'O ,1
O O <
GRAPHIC SCALE:
0 50 100 200
•i 4I O �s
�S
11�V
\ '` tib'R`\ Ij
` r
y
VICINITY MAP I ARCMI 10®93 NORTH
1203 PISMO
e
l
a
�2
LU
0
LU
JN
�jl
EL.
BARRY LORENZ WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES
ARCHrrECTS • PLANNERS
March 2. 1993
Judy Lautner
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: ARCMI 10-93 1203 Pismo Street
Dear Judy:
Last Friday. February 26th, I' submitted .eight (8) sets of revised
Plans that take into consideration the direction given to us at
the February , 16th ARC meeting., As some of the changes appear
subtle. I feel it fs important to point out the real magnitude of
them in the form of this letter. -
1- will
etter.I will address these changes in the order that, .Ronald Whisenand
outlined them for us in his letter of February -19th.
I. Lower the height of the building by 2 feet, possibly by a
minor change in the roof pitch, reducing the bedroom size, and
lowering the plate height.
Our latest proposal has lowered the plate . line by 611.
We also have lowered the pitch of .the main roof from
8: 12 to 6-1/2: 12. The result is the overall height has
been reduced from 20 '--8" as first submitted to 18 ' -3".-
This. combination has reduced the effective width of the
bedroom by 4 feet. The UBC sec. 1207. (a) states that
"no portion of the room measuring less than 5 feet from
the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall be
included in any computation of the minimum area -
thereof" (See attached exhibit 'A ' ) . Due to head
height considerations as well as raising the window we
were forced to keep the dormer at the stair and east
side at a raised plate height of approximately 13' -411.
2. Raise the upper windows and change trae Toro Street windows to
double hung.
Lowering the roof and raising the windows had a
conflict on one another. as mentioned above. The
window on the East side will have a sill height at
approximately 5 ' • Due to :he re0uirement. by the UBC
for egress from sleeping rooms the sill height must be
I 110 CnUFORNLA BOULEVARD, SUITE E SAN Lids O&Sao, CAUFORNIA 93401 • (8051 541-0997 • FAx 18051 541-1197
POST OFFICE Box 2978 • ORCUTT, CAUFORNN 93457 - (8051934-2676
r.
I
no more than 44" above the finished . floor. With the concern
about overlook on the property to the east we chose the window on
the north' to satisfy this •requirement. Looking at the site plan
as well as the enclosed photos I think it is apparant that •any
overlook is very minimal at best. On the front elevation we
have• proposed a single set of double-hung windows that are tall
and narrow, reminiscent . of "Victorian" styled single story
buildings in the area.
3. Modify. the landscaping by increasing; its height. chanatnethe
type of street tree proposed, and adding• a tree in front of the
apartment.
Most of this has been done verbatim. The proposed trees and
location thereof will, when mature, block out more of a view .than
our proposal will. We were forced to delete the� tree on Pismo
Street as it fell within the 30 foot sight line for corner lots:
At the last meeting is . seemed that the neighbors - were more
concerned about limiting the apartment to -Q= story than they
were about the actual height of the building. Our design
Proposal 'makes a reasonable compromise with the neighbors
concerns. Yes, our design is a partial 2 story .structure by the
strictest of definitions. We have done several things to keep
the height to a minimum that you. will not find anywhere on the
block. In particular, we are. proposing a slab-on-grade
structure. This alone reduces the overall height by a minimum• of
2411, We are proposing the a first floor plate height of 7'6"
typically in this area of town you would expect a height of 8t
least 10 '-011. As noted on the enclosed "block elevation'.' our
design is shorter than the .one-story• house to the ' east and
approximately 8 feet shorter than the 2 story house at 1432 Toro
Street. Again � feed it is important to note that the "loft"
concept seduces the effective lot coverage.
In conclusion, I hope that it will be seen that reasonable
sacrifices are being made on both sides. Hopefully, when this
protect is nekt heard it will receive final' approval.* and
Hopefully it will be because all parties agree it is the best
solution for all.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry L. Williams
BLW/
9301arc2
♦ � I
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x s J
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 16, 1993
FILE NUMBER: ARC 10-93
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1203 Pismo Street
SUBJECT: Apartment to be built on lot that contains a residence, on the southeast corner of Pismo
and Toro Streets.
SUN ZARY RECOIN'LMENDATION
Grant schematic or final approval.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicants want to add a one-bedroom apartment to a site that contains a one-bedroom dwelling.
A similar request was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in 1991,. and
continued. The applicant for that project never submitted revised plans, and instead sold the property
to the present applicants.
Data Summary
Address: 1203 Pismo Street
Applicant/Property owners: Bruce and Myla Collier
Representative: Barry Lorenz Williams Associates
Zoning: R-2
General plan: Medium-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Addition of small residence to site.
Project action deadline: August 21, 1993
Site description
The site is a trapezoidal-shaped lot, 37.51'-wide at Pismo Street, narrowing to 30.86' at the "rear".
The lot slopes down approximately nine inches in 140 feet, from Pismo to the rear. It contains an older
house and a small one-car garage.
The neighborhood consists of older, well-kept homes and apartments, with buildings close together from
lot to lot, and many homes built close to the street. A variety of styles is apparent, although modest
colonial and Spanish styles seem to predominate.
Project description
The project is the demolition of a garage, which sits near two property lines at the rear of the lot, and
construction of a one-bedroom apartment (with a loft bedroom) and carport, with storage and utility
rooms between the two. The carport would cover two cars, while a third parking space is to be located
next to the carport.
ARC 10-93
1203 Pismo Street
Page 2
EVALUATION
1. The previous project. The project submitted for this site in 1991 was an 810-square-foot one-
bedroom apartment over a two-car garage. The ARC saw this design, plus a sketch of an alternative
design, which reduced the area by about 104 square feet. The commission continued the project,
because of concerns with the massing, scale, setbacks, and overlook. The commission directed the
applicant to reduce the size of the new unit, reduce the height of the eaveline by about three feet,
and orient the front of the new unit toward Toro Street. (See minutes of 8/5/91, attached.)
2. The present project addresses commission direction. The proposed new apartment is to be about
650 square feet in area, and is 20'-8" high, whereas the other design was 26'-6". The roofline has
been changed to minimize impacts on views, as well. The addition of a small porch helps to orient
the new building to Toro Street. The attached overlay shows the new project superimposed on the
old.
3. The storage and utility rooms add to the bulk of the building. Although the floor area of the
existing residence is Iarger than that of the proposed apartment, the."multi-purpose" utility room;
small storage room, and carport give the new building a bulkier appearance than its size alone would
indicate. The utility room is large enough to be converted into a second bedroom, and its design
would allow that to happen easily. The applicants indicate that their need for storage is great, and
it appears that they do not intend to convert the storage and utility rooms into a hall and bedroom.
However, future owners may wish to do so. As with other projects where conversions may create
additional bedrooms, staff will require an awknowledgement to be signed by the owners and
recorded, that stipulates the number of bedrooms allowed on the site. An option that may also be
considered, to limit a conversion, is to require creation of a separate storage and multipurpose room,
closer to the existing residence.
4. Several exceptions are involved. The site is nonconforming, because it is small and narrow.
Because of the unusual width of the lot, a variance was granted two years ago, to allow a five-foot
minimum streetyard where ten feet is normally required, and a three-foot other yard where seven
feet is normally required. An exception was also granted (by administrative use permit) to allow
a five-foot other yard where seven is normally required. These exceptions are still active, because
the City Council automatically extended all administrative and architectural approvals for two years,
while the water allocation regulations are in effect.
Another exception is still needed: Parkins spaces are required to be twenty feet from the street
property line. The proposed spaces are%bout 14' from the property line. The Community
Development Director may approve an exception to this requirement. In this case, the Director will
defer to the ARC's judgment. The alternative to the proposed arrangement is to have the apartment
over a garage, as in the previous design, or use more of the area intended as open space for the
existing house. The proposed design is the most economical in its use of paving, and does not
appear to be an unsafe arrangement.
The effect of the smaller yards is that the building may block neighbors' views of San Luis
Mountain, or public views from Toro Street of the Santa Lucia Hills. A one-story structure would
not have a significant impact on views, but it appears that the two-story building would have some
impact. The project has been reduced in scale from the previous design, and oriented to have a
lesser impact. Should the commission feel that the downsizing does not adequately address
1-_til
ARC 10-93
1203 Pismo Street
Page 3
commission concerns, then the commission may want to ask that the new building be limited to one
story, or moved away from the southeast property line, toward the existing house, at least an
additional five feet, and also farther away from Toro Street. The approval of yard exceptions does
not mean that the applicant has a right to the smaller yards. The ARC may require larger yards if
it feels compatibility, overlook, or other concerns will arise from. the smaller yards and that a
reasonable project can be built with lesser exceptions.
The enclosed packet from several concerned neighbors questions the legality of the yard exceptions
that were granted. The files for those exceptions indicate that all public noticing procedures were
followed. Notification requirements for different processes differ, however. In this case, the
requirement for the yard exceptions was to provide notification to adjacent property owners and
tenants, whereas for architectural review 300' notice is required.
5. Outdoor yards are small. The proposal creates a larger yard for the existing residence than for
the new apartment. The new apartment dwellers will have to use their "front" yard area for outdoor
activities. Fencing is propposed to match existing, that would, along with existing shrubs, provide
some privacy. Moving the new building toward the center of the lot would create a larger outdoor
use area for the apartment residents, and reduce the yard available to the residents of the main
house.
OTHER DEPARTitM T COi BIENTS
This project was not routed to other departments, as there did not appear to be any issues that would
affect them.
Attached:
vicinity map
minutes of August 5, 1991 ARC meeting
overlay of present project on previous design
letter of opposition from neighbor
In packet:
plans
letter and photographs from neighbors
1_7
' ARC Minutes
August 5, 1991
Page 8
AYES: Combrink, Cooper, Gates, Illingworth, Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bradford
The motion passes.
7. li �1 Q 12M Pismo Street;add one unit apartment to site with existing
house; R-2 zone; schematic review.
Comm=. Combrink stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the
commission grant schematic approval of the alternative design plan, with direction on
landscaping, paving, and colors.
Barry Williams, architect, and Chris Duvall, applicant, responded to the staff report and
explained the project.
Sherry Fontan, 1216 Buchon, presented a petition objecting to the scale of the garage
and second unit.
Jim Kelleher, 1216 Buchon, was opposed to the project due to scale, height, and lack of
adequate parking.
Eleanor McMillan and Dorothy Warren, 1424 Toro, opposed the project.
Vince Crooks spoke in support of the project.
Bruce Seivertson, neighbor and Cultural Heritage Committee Member, voiced concerns
with the project's scale and parking and with the removal of the circa 1926 garage.
Co.-nmr. Gates felt the project was out of scale with the neighborhood and felt the
addition should be smaller than the main house. She suggested adding more gables to
improve roof and wall articulation.
Commr. Cooper felt that variances which have been granted have created an unworkable
design program. He was concerned with the density and setbacks and preferred a one-
story solution.
ARC Minutes
August 5, 1991
Page 9
Commr. Illingworth thought the unit looked too large. He indicated his main problem
was the mass of the two-story building to the eave line. He felt it would be better to
lower the eaves and reduce the floor area. He wanted to see additional design emphasis
for the rear unit entry to create a street front for the rear building.
Chairman Underwood agreed with Commr. Illingworth. He was concerned with possible
privacy and overlook impacts on the neighbors. He felt the second unit should be
smaller than the main building.
Cornmr. Illingworth moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to
reduce the size of the new unit, reduce the height of the building's eave line by about 3
feet, and to orient the front of the new unit toward Toro Street.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Cooper, Gates, Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bradford, Combrink
The motion passes.
Commr. Combrink returned to the meeting.
8. ARC 91-58: 1122 Laurel Lane; request for exception to the Sign Regulations to
allow an illuminated wall sign and monument sign for Morris & Garritano
Insurance Company; O-S zone.
Jeff Hook; Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the
commission deny the request.
Neither the applicant nor the representative were present at the meeting.
On motion of Commr. Cooper, seconded by Commr. Illingworth, the sign proposal was
continued to the commission's August 19th meeting.
1 I •�
j iH
��� .� � F7j l!' �1. 1• ?�:"�.;�, r�kt'�I�1�II1':ilr� ryi{�i;�t � Ilii —'1 +� �^' ,
` .i � ':p I" '1.•!i:� '" '�Li;i�^ �iir' �l i� a[�5�:1�• •"a '
'�'t l7 i. ff' u'cp I I •3 �� "
f� •" • ' f� Wr, II� t � I
�F: ii " `:�3,` ,. �I I it :;If ���• - - �"r �' •
+i l•"'''
dECEly �
1176 Pismo Street FEB U 81943
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6 February 1992 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP:
..MMUM Y!NFk'- r._
City of San Luis Obispo
Architectural Review Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
subject: ARCMI 10=93
Gentlemen:
I would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to the
addition of a one bedroom unit to the property at 1203 Pismo
Street for the following reasons:
1. There is currently no off-street parking at this site save a
small one-car garage which appears not even to be large enough
for any but the smallest of cars and which has never been used as
a garage in recent years. This means that all parking is on the
street.
2. An additional unit would probably mean that at least two
additional cars would need to park on the street.
3. At the present time there is a. severe problem with cars
parking on the street due to the existence of rental units which
were apparently built before the city required off-street
parking.
4. On-street parking is particularly hazardous to residents who
must back out of their driveways onto Pismo Street which is a one
way street and in this area carries truck traffic from the
Payless drug store and also busses from SLO high school. When
cars are parked in front of my house it is virtually impossible
to see whether there are cars coming so one is forced to back out
slowly and hope that oncoming cars will stop. This problem is
exacerbated by the narrow driveways which most people have due to
the age of the neighborhood and by the fact that the majority of
the homeowners in the area are seniors who have more difficulty
in backing out.
For these reasons I would urge you to reject the application
unless off-street parking for at least 4 vehicles is available at
the site.
Sincqj5ely yours,
�L
Robert P. Rice Jr.
w nn
N�
z.. tai.: � ro =,•�f�L-iia IVY 9 * `�` :a._j`-"
M t �I _ _4 ��" J._�.� !� !� ��.�Y� �-��ry ^"yxFw{1 ��•�r�iifa li
v ..
i�
Sirs'/re R,�
_ I
r
.w t
.,i,
LI -
„- _ .. ..-..mow
'SToi�
1
f�
lid• • i�
�r.
G 'e
.�wY. �i'+4,_`Y�-M�T�a..YF' 1 �• •yC 4ViMMyi 1.
frr�fliILLMrtN�l'lY�
r
- f-�"ra.t;.L ��•.•.=•t�T. '1.. .�..Q,L .`..yea'V..,a "Zr r�isP'±"•xt�.-�-�.:s
wNet7w.rY4'R'a'��'+' p 'rw(.- -'1oM+.wC•rxY:adti fYL_
}xt16,c+T.��•" `'�Y=`s u- ��,..�+..••.+►- Y"� a!- 3..� �xRi" .�.az
�1WAeM ti'r�'X<^[-�£1%-4.�.'krWs _114• .�e'7�-7�"
vC:.T• r '� T.�:R� `Ir.r��� 1iCh SI( {�1 I.i. �L �� _;ry.
oer--:�r—r ...--r-.n••4-ner 4•- ra+•.+w••n+. ION
fv •s;
Ism
NNW
7 AV
•-
t.
Y
f l
ArA
`
;'c:i'tS':' a
r
c
F3
`y0
I�w - MEETING. AGENDA
. L DATE ' 4" ITEM #
BARRY LORENZ WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS' • PLANNERS
AXDril 14. 1993
- ❑'De>o.Ies ActionIr�/. CJ FYI
� �1 CDD DIP,
. :9 -an' 9an• Luis Obispo City Council � �� ����� fdG'O El ���
P.O. Box 8100 2r C FIRE OiIEF
San Luis Obispo. 'CA 9.3403-8100APR' 1. 5 1993 2A RIC ❑. FWDIR�
!�7clm�;iozlc. ❑ RDLICECrL-
❑ MGNrr.cava C1 P,EC.DIr
REtAppeal to ARCMI-10-93 CITY CLERK ❑ C:READFLE ❑ UTILDill
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA � _. ❑
Dear Mayor Pinard and Members _ of. the City Council:
On:-April .• 20th You will be hearing . an appeal to the: above.
. i:eferenced' ARC -decision. The. purpose. -'of this . letter . is to
' address and clarify the concerns noted.o. in the appeal and to ask
Yod;.to uphold the ARC decision' -and to the- deny. the appeal.
_�,"There was a previous project- by' a . former' owner of the project
site pre-sented Ari -1991 -that set many of. the design . Parameters.
incorporated into the design of this project: Specifically the
;i protect setbacks, as , . well .as •the neithbors' "concerns regarding
height. It should _ be noted'- that' at the public hearings which
set the reduced setbacks there was =' public testimony against
the reduced setbacks. We . believe that, the design of this one
bedroom unit with an attached- carport meets or exceeds all of
-,the original coneerns.,
The project before you was first -heard before ' .the ARC- on
February 16. 1993. , where it. received schematic approval. The _
project received a unanimous final approval (two Commissioners
. stepped down . due to conflict of interest) with some minor
direction It was noted by the Commissioners that . the- project
as- presented was a good ' comDromise to all. 'L
. .:Et- seems to ,me, 'that the neighbors are more . concerned about
limiting the
apartment to bne story ' than they are, about . the
actual height of the • building. Our design proposal makes a
,. .reasonable compromise.with_ the neighbors' concerns. Our design
'is a partial two-story structure by the. strictest of
definitions. - We have done-. severai things 'to. keep.•the height to
min1mum. You won' t• find these efforts at height control- on
-
any" other' structure - Anvwhere on the block. In particular. we '
are ' Proposing •a slab-•on-grade structure. This alone reduces the ,
.• .,overali height by' a minimum of 20% . Secondly. we are. proposing
a first floor plate, height . of 7'-6" where typically, in this .
—1'I I O(-AuFORNA BouLEvAm. Surm E •S N Lars CEusro, GwFoRNA 93401 • X805) 541-0997 • FAx(805) 54 1-1 197
Post OFflo Box 2978 • ORcurT, CALIFORNIA 93457 • )805) 934-2676 •
S. L.0. City Council
April 14. 1993
Page 2'
: area of town. you would expect a 'height of' at least 10' -0". As
noted on the enclosed "block elevation" (Exhibit A) .• our design
is ' shorter than the one-story house (the appellants) located to
-,the east of the site and approximately eight -feet shorter than
the- two-story house. at 1432 Toro Street. - . It is important to
note that the "loft" concept the- effective lot coverage
while allowing . .for a more spacious feel in " the living area of
. the'. structiire. The one-story visual con'tept ties the design' in
-with the context of the neighborhood. With tht exCeption. of the
one=story mission- revival structure on the • corner of -Buclion and
Toro Streets this will be the 'shortest structure on the block.,
In reviewing .-the appeal it is important to .examine the neighbors
: Proposed solution as well. Many of' the concerns brought up in
_.O e: -appeal. contradict .what* they have proposed with their one
Story--solution. - In our review of their- proposed solution given `
prior . to the initial -ARC hearing we made the following. '
-::'c m aris.ons: (See.. kxhibii B '- an overlay of both' Drojects) .
1':: The neighbors possible solution uses the same setback
Y distances we' have used in- ours, yet they consider those
setbacks. inadequate in' their appeal of our project. ,
2_. Their solution uses the same density we have used in ours.
i. e. . 2 one-bedroom units. -yet they deem this -too dense -in
J. their appeal.
_3- ' Their solution has a greater lot coverage than ours." yet
they object to_ our lesser lot coverage in their appeal.
. Our•: design has been very •conscientious in regard' to .overlook and
the privacy of the - neighboring resi.dences4 On the shared
Property line with the appellants we .-have used obscure glass in
the lower window and_' set our window sills at 5' for the' 12." high
ventilation window. The window at.•the rear of the building does
not overlook the appellants property- and only overlooks the
eArage of the property at. 1211 , Pismo. IThe sill of this window
'"
is•44 . above . the finishedfloor to meet the U: B. C. requirements
for emergency egress. This neighbor, is in favor. of the 'proi:ect:.
Iri closing.- 1- feel that 'our project is .'very much in keeping with'
tihe context of the neighborhood.. . One need only to walk around
:.w„tha;block to see the many2-story, multi-unit dwellings. Many,
t�not all. existing structures 'in this area are non-conforming
i one. or more areas, be- it setbacks. height or density; Much
mac, _V-!.-_
of .this non-conformity helps _ to 'create the wonderful charm and
.-mow.. .
C
-Si L.o. City -Council
April 14, 1993 '
Page 3 " .
:-rhythm that we all enjoy in this part of '.town.- :-This project has,
_successfully gone 'through. the public" hearinsE process'. In all•
cases • .we have - adhered , to the direction Siven to ,us by the .
"commissions.
I_ ask again. that Youuphold the. ARC decision and deny the
appeal. . -
Barry •L. Williams
BL.W-lmw.
93oicc -
A'
7 �
- - • - - • - - • - - . - -� I•- . - - - - - • - -- • - . -
s
.--{ i I •--1 I I � ,
rn
N I I I
I70I o
n
r ! N I
I I o
o I I o I I rn
I v I
70
Ei
....................................... I o
�o
_9� N
a• a
I
• I
L . . . . . . . . . . . -I
1 I
L11
0
=- - .. =
13
E3
Fit
315 E L--, =714L
crir
SEGjiof� 1'/�R�LI-EL "'fo 5jf�.EE-r �i8"= io'� .
SOUTH
FSR AJFZ. H►. L