HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 Appeal ARC Design Permit 323-353 Grand AveFROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By:Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWCOMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN OF FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 323 &
353 GRAND AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1)thatdenies the appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s approval, thereby granting final design approval to the project
based on findings of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City
standards; subject to conditions as set forth in Attachment 1.
SITE DATA
Applicant PB Companies
Representative Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects
Submittal Date March 9, 2015
Complete Date March 17, 2015
Zoning R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
General Plan Low Density
Site Area 0.53 Acres (23,132 square feet)
Environmental
Status
Negative Declaration adopted by
Planning Commission (ER 25-13) on
August 14, 2013.
SUMMARY
The project is a request for Architectural Review approval to allow construction of four single-family
residences and associated site improvements. The proposed project was approved by the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) on April 6, 2015 and was subsequently appealed to the City Council by
Linda White and Karen Adler based on concerns over consistency with some of the requirements of
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5 (ResidentialProject Design); mainly related to the
scale/massing and compatibility of the project with the existing neighborhood.
Over the course of two public hearings,the ARC considered the design of the subject project and
directed modifications (scale/square footage reduction and site plan revisions) to the design for
compatibility with the existing neighborhood and consistency with Community Design Guidelines. As
approved by the ARC and discussed in section 2.0 below, the design of the proposed homes are
compatible with the existing neighborhood by incorporating existing architectural characteristics and
providing compatible scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with the neighborhood, consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines.
06/02/15
PH2 - 1
PH2
323/353 Grand AvenueAppeal – File No. 25-13Page 2
1.0BACKGROUND
1.1Site Information/Setting
Site Size ~23,000 square feet
Present Use & Development Two R-1 parcels with one single-family residence each
Topography Flat: ~4 percent cross slope
Access Grand Avenue
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Single-Family Residence (R-1 zone)
South: Single-Family Residence (R-1 zone)
East: Grand Avenue + Single Family Residences (R-1 zone)
West: Single Family Residences (R-1-Planned Development zone)
The project site currently encompasses two parcels; 323 Grand Avenue (12,032.63 square feet) and
353 Grand Avenue (11,099.33 square feet). The Planning Commission approved a tentative parcel map
to divide the two parcels into four in August, 2013 (see section 1.3 below for more details). The project
site is located on the west side of Grand Avenue between McCollum and Fredericks Streets. The two
parcels are in the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone and are encompassed by R-1 zoning with single-
family residences.
The project site is gently sloping (approximately 4% average cross slope) and is developed with two
single-family residences (to be demolished); one per parcel. Each parcel has a driveway providing
access from Grand Avenue and minimal other improvements. Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet A0.2
illustrates the sites existing conditions (structures, trees, hardscape).
1.2Project Description
The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 2, Project Plans):
1.Construction of four detached single-family residences (two story homes):
a.Lot 1: 1,995 square foot 1 4-bedroom, 3-bath residence
b.Lot 2: 2,379 square foot1 4-bedroom, 4-bath residence
c.Lot 3: 2,364 square foot1 4-bedroom, 3-bath residence
d.Lot 4: 1,963 square foot1 4-bedroom, 3-bath residence
2.Common access driveway (porous pavers) providing access to lots 2, 3, and 4 with guest
parking spaces:
a.11 parking spaces are provided to meet Zoning Regulations requirements and the
project site accommodates an additional 14 parking spaces in guest spaces and
driveways.
3.Tree removals: The City Arborist and the ARC approved tree removals 2 that are within the
footprint of the proposed residences. Trees outside of the footprints and access way need to be
maintained to the maximum extent feasible or approved for removal by the Tree Committee.
No removal of heritage treesproposed (Attachment 3, Existing Site Plan, indicates tree types
and sizes).
1 The square footage calculation does not include garages (502 square foot average size) or porch/decks (294 square foot
average size).
2 Approximately 27 proposed tree removals(Citrus, California Walnut, Alder, Fern Pine, Victorian Box, Loquat, Sweet
Gum) ranging in size from 4-inch to 14-inch.
PH2 - 2
323/353 Grand AvenueAppeal – File No. 25-13Page 3
4.Craftsman architectural style:
a.Horizontal siding (4 or 6-inch siding) with decorative wainscoting (8-inch siding) and
board and batten gable accenting with craftsman style architectural detailing.
b.Covered porches with tapered columns and brick bases.
Table 2.2: Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet
Other Yard Setback (sides and rear) Compliant (6’-6” to 20’)Varied (5’ to 8’ minimum)
Max. Height of Structure(s) 24’-6” feet 25 feet
Building Coverage (footprints) ~31% average 40%
Parking Spaces (total) 11 (plus 14 guest &
driveway spaces)
11
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. City Zoning Regulations
1.3Previous Review & Entitlement Path
August 14, 2013:the Planning Commission (PC) approved a subdivision of the project site allowing
four parcels to be created from two existing parcels. The subdivision included exceptions from the
Subdivision Regulations due to substandard lot depths (mean lot depth reduction of 18 feet) and
substandard lot areas (mean lot area reduction of 762 square feet per lot). This approval is not under
appeal.
January 21, 2015:the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) took staff’s recommendation and
continued the project with direction to the applicant to revise the on-site circulation and reduce the
size/scale of the proposed homes on the front lots to approximately 2,000 square feet (sf) and the
homes on the rear lots to approximately 2,400 square feet.(Attachment 6, 01-21-15 ARC Direction,
Minutes, & Staff Report)
April 6, 2015:the ARC reviewed the applicant’s site plan revisions and reduction to the size and scale
of the proposed residences.The applicant reduced the mass of the homes by adding further articulation
to the upper stories and reducing the square footage of the homes on the front lots to 1,995 sf
(previously 2,258 sf = 263 sf reduction) and 1,963 sf (previously 2,425 sf = 462 sf reduction)and the
homes on the rear lots to 2,379 sf (previously 2,866 sf = 487 sf reduction) and 2,364 sf (previously
2,650 sf = 286 sf reduction). The ARCgranted design approval of the projectbased on consistency
with ARC directionand the Community Design Guidelines.(Attachment 7, 04-06-15 ARC Approval
Resolution, Minutes, & Staff Report)
April 15, 2015:the ARC’s design approval was appealed by Linda White and Karen Adler noting
concerns with Community Design Guidelines compliance as discussed in section 2.0 below.
(Attachment 4, ARC Appeal)
PH2 - 3
323/353 Grand AvenueAppeal – File No. 25-13Page 4
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following details the appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the design of the proposed project
and provides staff’s response to the reasons for appeal.
**Please note: The applicant has provided a letter in response to the appeal (see Attachment 5).
2.1Reason for Appeal:The submitted appeal (Attachment 4) indicates that the “project does not
abide with Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5: 5.1, 5.3 A & B”. The referenced sections are
provided below and are followed by a staff response:
Community Design Guideline 5.1 Goals for Residential Project Design:
These guidelines are intended to encourage well designed residentialneighborhoods that people
enjoy living in, which: reduce the visual dominance of the automobile; promote pedestrian
activity; create variety and interest in the appearance of residential streets; provide community
open space; and protect significant features of the natural environment.
Community Design Guideline 5.3.A General principles. Infill residential development should:
1.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.Continue existing neighborhood patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches and
entries facing the street, finished floor height, and garages located at the rear of lots.
Community Design Guideline 5.3.B Building design:
An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of
existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof
style and pitch, ornamentation and other details.
Staff Response:
a)ARC Reduced Home Sizes for Neighborhood Compatibility.Over the course of two
public hearings the ARC considered the design of the subject project. Related to the
appeal and in consideration of neighborhood compatibility, the ARC (January 21st
hearing) directed the applicant to reduce the overall square footage and mass of the
proposed homes, and the applicant revised the project as directed.
b)Homes Sizes Consistent/Compatible with Existing Adjacent Homes.With the ARC
approved size reduction, the homes on the front lots (fronting Grand Avenue) are now
smaller in square footage than the adjacent homes fronting Grand Avenue and the
homes on the rear lots are smaller than, or similar in square footage to, the existing
adjacent residences to the west and north (see Attachment 5, Applicant Response,
Exhibit C). Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, the proposed homes
are compatible with existing home sizes in the neighborhood.
c)Project Detailing Consistent/Compatible with Existing Adjacent Homes. Consistent
PH2 - 4
323/353 Grand AvenueAppeal – File No. 25-13Page 5
and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project incorporates low-sloped
hip and gable roofs with composite roofing, vertical and horizontal siding, stucco (lot
4), covered porches/entrances with tapered columns and brick bases, and visible
garage access; these elements are commonly found within the existing neighborhood.
The proposed home designs create variety and interest while also remaining
compatible with the existing neighborhood (see Attachment 5, Applicant Response,
Exhibits D & E).
d)Project consistent with Community Design Guidelines.As discussed above, the
proposed homes are harmonious with the existing neighborhood by incorporating the
neighborhoods architectural characteristics and are compatiblein scale, siting,
detailing, and overall character with homes in the immediate neighborhood as
required by the Community Design Guidelines.
3.0FISCAL 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. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.There is no fiscal impact associated with the
approval of this project.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2.Deny the projectby upholding the appealof the ARC’s approval, based on findings of
inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines,and applicable City regulations
(Attachment 8, Draft Project Denial Resolution).
This alternative is not recommended because the applicant’s revisions to the project (in
response to ARC direction) have reduced the scale and massing of the project in a manner that
is consistent with the Community Design Guidelinesand the design and detailing of the project
is compatible with the neighborhood.
5.0ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Project Plans
3.Existing Site Plan
4.ARC Appeal (White & Adler)
5.Applicant Response to Appeal (PB Companies)
6.01-21-15 ARC Direction & Minutes
Note:ARC Staff Report (01-21-15) available in the Council Reading File
7.04-04-15 ARC Approval Resolution & Minutes
Note:ARC Staff Report (04-06-15) available in the Council Reading File
8.Draft Project Denial Resolution (upholding the appeal)
\\chstore7\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-06-02\Appeal ARC Design Permit-323 Grand Street (Johnson-Carloni)\E-CAR 323.353 Grand
Avenue (25-13).docx
PH2 - 5
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH2 - 6
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2015Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYINGAN APPEAL
(FILED BY LINDA WHITE AND KAREN ADLER) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION’S DESIGN APPROVAL; THEREBY GRANTING FINAL
DESIGN APPROVAL OF FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JUNE 2, 2015 (323/353 GRAND AVENUE, R-1 ZONE, FILE
NO. 25-13)
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission 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,for the purpose of design review for four new single-family
residences and associated site improvements (the “Project”)instituted under ARC 25-13, PB
Companies (“Applicant”) and continued the project to a date uncertain with five directional
items for modifications to the Project; and
WHEREAS,on April 6, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamberof City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, and granted design approval for the Project; and
WHEREAS,on April 15, 2015, Linda White and Karen Adler filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the design of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, 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, for the purpose of considering the April 15, 2015 appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission’saction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Architectural Review Commissionhearing and actions, testimony of the applicant,interested
parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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:
1.That the Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning
designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety
codes.
PH2 - 7
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 2
2.That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the Project iscompatible in
scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with buildings in the neighborhood.
3.That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the Project incorporates
articulation, massing,and a mix of color/finish materials thatare compatible with the
neighborhood.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The Planning Commission adopted a Negative
Declaration (ER 25-13) of Environmental Impact on August 14, 2013 finding the Project to not
have the potential for significant effects on the environment.
SECTION 3.Action. The City Council hereby denies the appeal (filed by Linda White
and Karen Adler) of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the design of the
Project, and hereby approves the Project (File No. 25-13) subject to the following conditions:
Planning Department – Community Development Department
Condition(s)
1.Density for this project is limited to four 4-bedroom residences.A “Conditions of Use of
Structure” agreementthat stipulates that each dwelling shall have no more than four
bedrooms, as defined in the Zoning Regulations, will need to be signed in the presence of a
notary and submitted prior to construction permit issuance.This agreement shall be subject to
the approval of the City Attorney.
2.Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of
project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to
where in plans requirements are addressed. 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.
3.Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that
all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand
finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
4.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features.
5.The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation ofthe proposed lighting fixturesand cut-
PH2 - 8
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 3
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that
light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
6.Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If
any condensers or other mechanical equipment isto be placed on the roof, plans submitted
for a building permit shallconfirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately
screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening
will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
7.Final landscape design and timing of installation shall be subject to the final approval of the
Community Development and Utilities Directors. During this period of “drought emergency”
the Director may defer installation of the final landscaping plan in-lieu of an alternative
drought-tolerant landscape plan or a temporary landscape plan designed to control
dust/erosion and maintain property aesthetics.
a.A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department along with working drawings
(installations may be required to be deferred as indicated above). The legend for
the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers,
shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing
their specific locations on plans.
b.Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building
permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no
brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the
object of interest.
c.Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, front yard
areas shall include a landscape layout similar to that found along this portion of
Grand Avenue which generally includes more open front yards which are not
designed as primary outdoor space. The proposed 30 inch hedge shall be replaced
with alternate landscaping.
d.Front yard landscaping, but mainlylandscaping along the common access way,
shall be of a sufficient height/density to screen parking spaces beyond
(approximately 3 feet minimum height).
8.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a final fencing plan indicating the fencing
style, locations, and heights.
9.Final monument sign design and location shall be shown on plans submitted for a
construction permit and shall be to the final approval of the CommunityDevelopment
Director. If the sign is proposed to be illuminated, detailed plans for sign illumination shall
PH2 - 9
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 4
be included with the sign design and lighting shall be designed for consistency with the
City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance and designed for durability.
10.The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipmentproposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
11.The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
12.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a minimum of five short-term bicycle
parking spaces, subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
Condition(s)
13.The building plan submittal shall show compliance with all subdivision conditions of
approval for the project.
14.The existing driveway approach that is to remain shall be verified as complying with ADA
and City standards for accessibility. If not accessible, the approach shall be altered or
upgraded to comply with current standards. The current City and ADA standard requires a 4’
sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
15.The building plan submittal shall show all required changes to the site plan for parking
circulation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
a.The proposed parallel parking space in front of Lot 1 shall be removed in favor of
landscaping. The driveway/curb design for the common accessway between Lots
1 and 4 shall widen from 20-feet to a minimum of 24-feet, symmetrically.
b.An additional parking space shall be provided in between Lots 3 and 4 (to account
for the removal of the parallel parking space referenced in 1a above). The two
parking spaces shall be lengthened to 24-feetfrom the property linealong the
common access way. This dimension can assume 30-inches for vehicle overhang.
PH2 - 10
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 5
c.The two parking spaces in between Lots 1 and 2 shall be lengthened to 22-feet
from the property linealong the common access way.This dimension can assume
30-inches for vehicle overhang.
16.The City Arborist shall approve all proposed tree removals prior to building permit issuance,
demolition permits, and/or grading permit approvals. The trees may be removed if they are
in decline, are creating damage to infrastructure, can’t be reasonably protected during
demolitions, or are in areas of new construction and new tree plantings. The site
development plan and parking layout shall consider potential tree preservations in the final
design.
17.Trees located within the building footprints are approved for removal in conjunction with an
approved building permit. The other existing sideyard trees shall be retained unless
otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and Community DevelopmentDirector.
A tree removal proposal may require a report from a certified arborist with a summary of
why the trees can’t be saved. If approved for removal, compensatory tree planting(s) may be
required to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
18.The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed trees. Off-site trees with
canopy or root systems located in the area of the new construction shall be shown for
reference. The plan shall show all trees to remain and shall include appropriate tree
preservation notes.
19.The final landscape plan shall agree with the architectural site plan and engineered grading
and drainage plan. Plantings proposed for detention basin areas shall be evaluated and
approved by the landscape designer and the City of San Luis Obispo.
20.One 15-gallon street tree shall be required for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City
Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting requirements, and whether the street trees
shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area or behind the back of walk in the front
yard.
21.Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or cutting of
substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist.
Code Requirement(s)
22.Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
23.Any section of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
PH2 - 11
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 6
24.Development shall comply with Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension,
maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are
recommended for water quality and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or
proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any
tree. Alternative paving materials shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division.
Fire Department
Condition(s)
25.Condition: In addition to the address numbers on the buildings, a monument sign showing
the address of each building shall be prominently located as to be clearly visible from Grand
Avenue.
Code Requirement(s)
26.Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
27.Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA 13D systems will be required for each project building.
Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to
installation. At least one pilot head will be required in the attic.
28.All new structures shall have ignition resistant siding, Class ‘A’ roof coverings, and eave and
attic vent protection from ember intrusion complying with Chapter 7A of the building
code/327R of the CRC in conformance with the City’s General Plan –Safety Element and
adopted in the City Fire Code.
29.Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with
Chapter 14 of the CFC.
Utilities Department
Condition(s)
30.Sheet C-1 does not currently show the sewer laterals that serve either Lot 1 or Lot 4. Sheet C-
1 does not show how water service will be extended from the meter to either Lot 2 or Lot 3.
Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan that delineates the location of the
property’s existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the
points of connection at the City water and sewer mains.
31.The property’s existing sewer laterals to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV
inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and
approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
PH2 - 12
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 7
32.Private utility easements shall be provided for water and sewer infrastructure that is proposed
to cross property lines (including water service and sewer lateral that crosses Lot 1 to serve
Lot 2 and that crosses Lot 4 to serve lot 3).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of June 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 13
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH2 - 14
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 15
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 16
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 17
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 18
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 19
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 20
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 21
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 22
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 23
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 24
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 25
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 26
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 27
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 28
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 29
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 30
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 31
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 32
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 33
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 34
76+-8<=)4 )6,;+)8-!4)6
'
'
'
'
! " %#!&
#--!-41516):A:),16/!4)6
#"
#
#
#$"$$"#
#! #!#!"
$( # %# #!
#$ "#
#"
" !$##
&! " %##%"#
("
$(!
("$
$(!
#$"$$"!%
%$ $## $
!4)6<16/-;1/6 7<-;
)6,;+)8-,-;1/6;0)44+7584A?1<0<0-1<A7.#)6 =1; *1;87
%61.7:5-;1/6:1<-:1)
44!4)6<5)<-:1)4;-4-+<-,;0)440)>-47?<75-,1=5?)<-::-9=1:-5-6<;
8-:'% #?1<0<0--@+-8<1767.<0-4)?6 $0-5)@15=5)8841-,?)<-:
)447?)6+- ')6,-;<15)<-,?)<-:=;-$'%0)>-*--6+)4+=4)<-,
$0-$'%1;4-;;<0)6<0- ';--;0--<
4484)6<16/*-,;;0)440)>-)51615=5 4)A-:7.7:/)61+5=4+0<0:7=/07=<
<71587:>-?)<-::-<-6<17616;714
)',&
'- )
"7;5):16=;7..1+16)41;0A*:1,;
$-=+:1=5+0)5)-,:A;
#)6<7416)+0)5)-+A8):1;;=;
#)6<7416)>1:-6;
8<-61)
)',&
'- )#& *#&*
)++0):1;814=4):1;
"1*-;>1*=:61.741=5
):-@;88
#,%%$$ )' $
# ,',*)
)/6741) )2-;<1+-)=<A
!4)<)6=;@)+-:1.741)
)! # ,',*)
!4)<)6=;@)+-:1.741)
4-,1<;1)<:1)+)6<07;-16-:51;0A*:1,
#,%%$$ )' $ ')
# ,',*)
!1;<)+1)+016-6;1;
!A:=;+)44-:A)6)
:*=<=; ):16)
%$$ &+)
)/6741) 1<<4--5
)/-:;<:7-51).)=:-10A*:1,
01<)48)<);03-6<-6;1;
"), * ) &&#$*.#+"
'$')
)>-6,-:;88
):8-6<-:1)+)41.7:61+)
-:*-:1;;88
1-<-;>-/-<)
#)4>1)4-=+)6<0)
#)4>1)/:-//11
-127);-447?1)6)
:1/-:76/4)=+=;
+0144-);88
-=+0-:);88
) &"), * (()'/#%+
" #!"+
")80174-81;16,1+)0A*:1,
:->144-)0A*:1,
:+<7;<)80A47;7?):, + 166
"0)56=;+)41.7:61+)>-);-
74-76-5)8=4+0:=5
A:1+)+)41.7:61+)
*-41)@/:)6,1.47:)
! "), * " #!"+%/#%,%
=76A5=;2)8761+=;#14>-:!:16+-;;
=@=;;-58-:>1:-6; )<-:*-:/
A:<=;+755=61;?):.
) &+"*
!7:7=; 8<176;
-+7587;-,:)61<-
!-):)>-4
!7:7=;!)>-:;
$
$
$
$
:
)
6
,
>
-
6
=
-
7:<0
#+)4-
):+0
!
"
!!
$0-"-;1,-6+-;)<:)6,>-6=-
#)6 =1; *1;87)41.7:61)
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 35
->E8 (?1>? ->E81?7@;<
>-:0B1%1?,&!#$>1859)!#!#' 8:0?/</-8/ D8?
%.'6.%5)%9006%.22.-)(#%5)3..18%0')#%0(45-/%5)( 15%.#%5)3!4) #!
-5: 5%5)$-2
';01@1>95:152<8-:@5:3?->1!;C";01>-@1;> 534C-@1>>1=A5>191:@<8-:@??111<@;2)-@1>
%1?;A>/1?&<1/51?B-8A-@5;:!5?@4@@<
CCC ?8;/5@E ;>3
A@585@51?
0;C:8;-0
;A@0;;>/;:
#%..104
15%.%0(4'%2)3)% #!0-54
63*
18316+,5 1.)3%05
#!%..104
1()3%5) #!!0-54
-+, ,-345:
21354-).(
")+)5%&.)4
B1>-31@;2;>&-:!A5?#.5?<;5@E
5:/41?
E1->
"-:0-@10'-06A?@91:@2-/@;> ;:B1>?5;:2-/@;>3-88;:?@;?=A->1211@
!!-:0?/-<1>1-
&!&<1/5-8!-:0?/-<1>1-?<;>@?25180B131@-.813->01:
&!-06A?@91:@2-/@;>
$ $8-:@ -/@;>2>;9)(#!&
E0>;F;:1>1-?=A->1211@ >>53-@5;:225/51:/E
(:5@?5885:3(:5@?;>3-88;:?
")@;
* ! &!+
')(@;
$
&!
,) )4-()0')4%53%0(7)06)
1/2%0-)4
->E8 (?1>? ->E81?7@;<
>-:0B1%1?,&!#$>1859)!#!#'
8:0?/</-8/ D8?
%.'6.%5)%9006%.22.-)(#%5)3..18%0')#%0(45-/%5)( 15%.#%5)3!4) #!
-5: 5%5)$-2
';01@1>95:152<8-:@5:3?->1!;C";01>-@1;> 534C-@1>>1=A5>191:@<8-:@??111<@;2)-@1>
%1?;A>/1?&<1/51?B-8A-@5;:!5?@4@@<
CCC ?8;/5@E ;>3
A@585@51?
0;C:8;-0
;A@0;;>/;:
#%..104
15%.%0(4'%2)3)%
#!0-54
63*
18316+,5 1.)3%05
#!%..104
1()3%5) #!!0-54
-+, ,-345:
21354-).(
")+)5%&.)4
B1>-31@;2;>&-:!A5?#.5?<;5@E
5:/41?
E1->
"-:0-@10'-06A?@91:@2-/@;> ;:B1>?5;:2-/@;>3-88;:?@;?=A->1211@
!!-:0?/-<1>1-&!&<1/5-8!-:0?/-<1>1-?<;>@?25180B131@-.813->01:
&!-06A?@91:@2-/@;>
$ $8-:@ -/@;>2>;9)(#!&
E0>;F;:1>1-?=A->1211@ >>53-@5;:225/51:/E
(:5@?5885:3(:5@?;>3-88;:?
")@;
* ! &!+
')(@;
$
&!
,) )4-()0')4%53%0(7)06)
1/2%0-)4
->E8 (?1>? ->E81?7@;<
>-:0B1%1?,&!#$>1859)!#!#'8:0?/</-8/ D8?
%.'6.%5)%9006%.22.-)(#%5)3..18%0')#%0(45-/%5)( 15%.#%5)3!4) #!
-5: 5%5)$-2
';01@1>95:152<8-:@5:3?->1!;C";01>-@1;> 534C-@1>>1=A5>191:@<8-:@??111<@;2)-@1>
%1?;A>/1?&<1/51?B-8A-@5;:!5?@4@@<
CCC ?8;/5@E ;>3
A@585@51?
0;C:8;-0
;A@0;;>/;:
#%..104
15%.%0(4'%2)3)%
#!0-54
63*
18316+,5 1.)3%05 #!%..104
1()3%5) #!!0-54
-+, ,-345:
21354-).(
")+)5%&.)4
B1>-31@;2;>&-:!A5?#.5?<;5@E
5:/41?
E1->
"-:0-@10'-06A?@91:@2-/@;> ;:B1>?5;:2-/@;>3-88;:?@;?=A->1211@
!!-:0?/-<1>1-
&!&<1/5-8!-:0?/-<1>1-?<;>@?25180B131@-.813->01:
&!-06A?@91:@2-/@;>
$ $8-:@ -/@;>2>;9)(#!&
E0>;F;:1>1-?=A->1211@ >>53-@5;:225/51:/E
(:5@?5885:3(:5@?;>3-88;:?
")@;
* ! &!+
')(@;
$
&!
,) )4-()0')4%53%0(7)06)
1/2%0-)4
->E8 (?1>? ->E81?7@;<
>-:0B1%1?,&!#$>1859)!#!#'8:0?/</-8/ D8?
%.'6.%5)%9006%.22.-)(#%5)3..18%0')#%0(45-/%5)( 15%.#%5)3!4) #!
-5: 5%5)$-2
';01@1>95:152<8-:@5:3?->1!;C";01>-@1;> 534C-@1>>1=A5>191:@<8-:@??111<@;2)-@1>
%1?;A>/1?&<1/51?B-8A-@5;:!5?@4@@<
CCC ?8;/5@E ;>3
A@585@51?
0;C:8;-0
;A@0;;>/;:
#%..104
15%.%0(4'%2)3)% #!0-54
63*
18316+,5 1.)3%05 #!%..104
1()3%5) #!!0-54
-+, ,-345:
21354-).(
")+)5%&.)4
B1>-31@;2;>&-:!A5?#.5?<;5@E
5:/41?
E1->
"-:0-@10'-06A?@91:@2-/@;> ;:B1>?5;:2-/@;>3-88;:?@;?=A->1211@
!!-:0?/-<1>1-&!&<1/5-8!-:0?/-<1>1-?<;>@?25180B131@-.813->01:
&!-06A?@91:@2-/@;>
$ $8-:@ -/@;>2>;9)(#!&
E0>;F;:1>1-?=A->1211@ >>53-@5;:225/51:/E
(:5@?5885:3(:5@?;>3-88;:?
")@;
* ! &!+
')(@;
$
&!
,) )4-()0')4%53%0(7)06)
1/2%0-)4
/.%'045#,22+)#4+/.,#.
"
!
"
"
22+)#4+/.'3+)./4'3
22+)#4+/.&'3+).3*#,,%/-0,97+4*4*'+49/( #.5+3$+30/
.+(/2-'3+).2+4'2+#
!#4'23/52%'3*#,,$'%+497#4'27+4*#3'0#2#4'-'4'2(/2'#%*,/4
*'3934'-3*#,,%/.3+34/(+.,+.'&2+0'-+44'23,/76/,5-'0/050
302#9+22+)#4+/.*'#&33500,+'&7+4*5.&'2)2/5.&0+0+.)#%*%+2%5+4
3*#,,$'#*9&2/:/.'$#3'&/.5.+(/2-'80/352'#.&0,#.47#4'2
2'15+2'-'.43
!#4'2+.)4+-'33*#,,$')/6'2.'&$9#.#54/-#4+%%/.42/,,'2#.&
#7'#4*'2-/.+4/2+.)&'6+%'4*#47+,,2'&5%'7#4'2+.)$#3'&/.
7'#4*'2'6'.43#.&4'-0'2#452'3
2
#
.
&
6
'
.
5
'
/24*
%#,'
#2%*
!
"
!!
*' '3+&'.%'3#42#.&6'.5'
#.5+3$+30/#,+(/2.+#
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 36
ෘ
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 37
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH2 - 38
$WW
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
PH2 - 39
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH2 - 40
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 41
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 42
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 43
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 44
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 45
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 46
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 47
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 48
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 49
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 50
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 51
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH2 - 52
&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW 3DOP6WUHHW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ VORFLW\RUJ
)HEUXDU\
5\DQ3HWHWLWDQG-RKQ%HOVKHU
0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$
68%-(&7 $5& *UDQG$YHQXH
Review of four new single-family residences in a previously-
approved four-lot subdivision with an exemption from CEQA
'HDU0U3HWHWLWDQG0U%HOVKHU
7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQDWLWVPHHWLQJRI-DQXDU\FRQWLQXHG
DFWLRQRQ\RXUSURMHFWWRDGDWHXQFHUWDLQZLWKWKHIROORZLQJGLUHFWLRQDOLWHPV
Planning Division
3URYLGHDYHKLFOHFLUFXODWLRQSODQWKDWSURYLGHVDGHTXDWHDQGVDIHYHKLFOH
FLUFXODWLRQIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH3DUNLQJDQG'ULYHZD\6WDQGDUGV
D,QFUHDVHWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\ZLGWKWRDOORZDGHTXDWHEDFNXSVSDFHIRU
YHKLFOHVXVLQJDOOSDUNLQJVSDFHV IHHWPLQLPXP
E,QFUHDVHWKHGULYHZD\GHSWKIRUORWLQRUGHUWRDOORZYHKLFOHVWRSDUNLQWKH
GULYHZD\ZLWKRXWRYHUODSSLQJWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\ IHHWLQFKHV
PLQLPXP
F3URYLGHDGHTXDWHFLUFXODWLRQIRUWKHJXHVWVSDFHRQORW DOORZLQJDYHKLFOHWR
H[LWWKHVLWHLQDIRUZDUGPRWLRQZLWKQRPRUHWKDQWZRPDQHXYHUV
G5HGXFHWKHGHSWKRIWKHJXHVWVSDFHVRQORWVDQGWRGLVFRXUDJHWDQGHP
SDUNLQJWKDWZLOORYHUODSLQWRWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\
/RWVDQG 5HGXFHWKHRYHUDOOVTXDUHIRRWDJHDQGPDVVRIWKHSURSRVHG
UHVLGHQFHV WRDSSUR[LPDWHO\VTXDUHIHHW IRUFRPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKWKHVFDOHRI
H[LVWLQJDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQFHVIURQWLQJ*UDQG$YHQXHDQGIRUORZHUHGGHYHORSPHQW
LQWHQVLW\RQWKHVHVXEVTXDUHIRRWSDUFHOV
/RWVDQG 5HGXFHWKHRYHUDOOVTXDUHIRRWDJHDQGPDVVRIWKHSURSRVHG
UHVLGHQFHV WRDSSUR[LPDWHO\VTXDUHIHHW IRUFRPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKWKHVFDOHRI
WKHH[LVWLQJDGMDFHQW/HUR\&RXUW3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWDQGIRUORZHUHG
GHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\RQWKHVHVXEVTXDUHIRRWSDUFHOV
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 53
$5& *UDQG$YHQXH
3DJH
7KHUHGXFWLRQLQVTXDUHIRRWDJHVFDOHRIWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHVVKDOOPDLQWDLQ
VLPLODUEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWVDQGSURYLGHUHGXFHGVL]HXSSHUIORRUDUHDV
Fire Department
3URYLGHDPRQXPHQWVLJQSRVLWLRQHGWREHFOHDUO\YLVLEOHIURP*UDQGDYHQXHDQG
VKRZLQJWKHDGGUHVVRIHDFKEXLOGLQJ
,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFW0DUFXV&DUORQLDW
6LQFHUHO\
3KLO'XQVPRUH$,&3
6HQLRU3ODQQHU
FF &RXQW\RI6/2$VVHVVRU¶V2IILFH
6WHYH5LJRU
$UULV6WXGLR$UFK
-RKQVRQ$YHQXH
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$
-RKQ:%HOVKHU75((7$/
FR%HOVKHU%HFNHU $VVRF
32%R[
3LVPR%HDFK&$
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 54
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 55
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 56
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 57
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 58
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1006-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION APPROVING PLANS FOR FOUR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPROVED BY PLANNING
COMMISSION ON AUGUST 14, 2013), AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 6, 2015
(323/353 GRAND AVENUE, R-1 ZONE, ARC 25-13)
:+(5($6RQ$SULOWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH&LW\RI6DQ
/XLV2ELVSRFRQGXFWHGDSXEOLFKHDULQJLQWKH&RXQFLO&KDPEHURI&LW\+DOO 3DOP6WUHHW
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&DOLIRUQLDIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIGHVLJQUHYLHZIRUIRXUQHZVLQJOHIDPLO\
UHVLGHQFHVDQGDVVRFLDWHGVLWHLPSURYHPHQWV WKH³3URMHFW´ LQVWLWXWHGXQGHU$5&3%
&RPSDQLHV ³$SSOLFDQW´ DQG
:+(5($6WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRKDV
GXO\FRQVLGHUHGDOOHYLGHQFHLQFOXGLQJWKHWHVWLPRQ\RIWKHDSSOLFDQWLQWHUHVWHGSDUWLHVDQG
HYDOXDWLRQDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVE\WKHVWDIIDWVDLGKHDULQJV
:+(5($6QRWLFHVRIVDLGSXEOLFKHDULQJVZHUHPDGHDWWKHWLPHDQGLQWKHPDQQHU
UHTXLUHGE\ODZ DQG
12:7+(5()25(%(,75(62/9('E\WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQRI
WKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRDVIROORZV
6(&7,21)LQGLQJV7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQKHUHE\JUDQWVDSSURYDO
WRWKHSURMHFW $5& EDVHGRQWKHIROORZLQJILQGLQJV
7KDWWKH3URMHFWZLOOQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\RUZHOIDUHRIWKRVHZRUNLQJRU
UHVLGLQJLQWKHYLFLQLW\VLQFHWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVLWH¶V]RQLQJ
GHVLJQDWLRQDQGZLOOEHVXEMHFWWRFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHEXLOGLQJILUHDQGVDIHW\
FRGHV
7KDWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&LW\¶V&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWKH3URMHFWLVFRPSDWLEOHLQ
VFDOHVLWLQJGHWDLOLQJDQGRYHUDOOFKDUDFWHUZLWKEXLOGLQJVLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KDWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&LW\¶V&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWKH3URMHFWLQFRUSRUDWHV
DUWLFXODWLRQPDVVLQJDQGDPL[RIFRORUILQLVKPDWHULDOVWKDWDUHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKH
QHLJKERUKRRG
6(&7,21(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZ7KH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDGRSWHGD1HJDWLYH
'HFODUDWLRQ (5 RI(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFWRQ$XJXVWILQGLQJWKH3URMHFWWRQRW
KDYHWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWVRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 59
5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&
*UDQG$YHQXH$5&
3DJH
6(&7,21$FWLRQ7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQKHUHE\JUDQWVILQDO
DSSURYDOWRWKHSURMHFWZLWKLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQV
Planning Department
'HQVLW\IRUWKLVSURMHFWLVOLPLWHGWRIRXUEHGURRPUHVLGHQFHV$³&RQGLWLRQVRI8VHRI
6WUXFWXUH´DJUHHPHQWWKDWVWLSXODWHVWKDWHDFKGZHOOLQJVKDOOKDYHQRPRUHWKDQIRXU
EHGURRPVDVGHILQHGLQWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQVZLOOQHHGWREHVLJQHGLQWKHSUHVHQFHRID
QRWDU\DQGVXEPLWWHGSULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLWLVVXDQFH
)LQDOSURMHFWGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJVVKDOOEHLQVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH
SURMHFWSODQVDSSURYHGE\WKH$5&$VHSDUDWHIXOOVL]HVKHHWVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGLQZRUNLQJ
GUDZLQJVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWWKDWOLVWDOOFRQGLWLRQVDQGFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI
SURMHFWDSSURYDODV6KHHW1R5HIHUHQFHVKRXOGEHPDGHLQWKHPDUJLQRIOLVWHGLWHPVDV
WRZKHUHLQSODQVUHTXLUHPHQWVDUHDGGUHVVHG$Q\FKDQJHWRDSSURYHGGHVLJQFRORUV
PDWHULDOVODQGVFDSLQJRURWKHUFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDOPXVWEHDSSURYHGE\WKH'LUHFWRURU
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQDVGHHPHGDSSURSULDWH
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOFDOORXWWKHFRORUVDQGPDWHULDOVRIDOOSURSRVHG
EXLOGLQJVXUIDFHVDQGRWKHULPSURYHPHQWVRQHOHYDWLRQGUDZLQJV3ODQVVKDOOFOHDUO\QRWH
WKDWDOOVWXFFRVXUIDFHVDUHQRWDVSUD\HGRQSURGXFWDQGKDYHDVPRRWKKDQGWURZHOHGRU
VDQGILQLVKDSSHDUDQFHWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOLQFOXGHZLQGRZGHWDLOVLQGLFDWLQJWKHW\SHRI
PDWHULDOVIRUWKHZLQGRZIUDPHVDQGPXOOLRQVWKHLUGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRORUV3ODQVVKDOO
LQFOXGHWKHPDWHULDOVDQGGLPHQVLRQVRIDOOOLQWHOVVLOOVVXUURXQGVUHFHVVHVDQGRWKHU
UHODWHGZLQGRZIHDWXUHV
7KHORFDWLRQVRIDOOOLJKWLQJLQFOXGLQJEROODUGVW\OHODQGVFDSLQJRUSDWKOLJKWLQJVKDOOEH
LQFOXGHGLQSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLW$OOZDOOPRXQWHGOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVVKDOO
EHFOHDUO\FDOOHGRXWRQEXLOGLQJHOHYDWLRQVLQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIZRUNLQJGUDZLQJV$OOZDOO
PRXQWHGOLJKWLQJVKDOOFRPSOHPHQWEXLOGLQJDUFKLWHFWXUH7KHOLJKWLQJVFKHGXOHIRUWKH
EXLOGLQJVKDOOLQFOXGHDJUDSKLFUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVDQGFXW
VKHHWVRQWKHVXEPLWWHGEXLOGLQJSODQV7KHVHOHFWHGIL[WXUH V VKDOOEHVKLHOGHGWRLQVXUH
WKDWOLJKWLVGLUHFWHGGRZQZDUGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&LW\¶V1LJKW6N\
3UHVHUYDWLRQVWDQGDUGVFRQWDLQHGLQ&KDSWHURIWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
0HFKDQLFDODQGHOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEHORFDWHGLQWHUQDOO\WRWKHEXLOGLQJ:LWK
VXEPLWWDORIZRUNLQJGUDZLQJVWKHDSSOLFDQWVKDOOLQFOXGHVHFWLRQDOYLHZVRIWKHEXLOGLQJ
ZKLFKFOHDUO\VKRZWKHVL]HVRIDQ\SURSRVHGFRQGHQVHUVDQGRWKHUPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQW
,IDQ\FRQGHQVHUVRURWKHUPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWLVWREHSODFHGRQWKHURRISODQV
VXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOFRQILUPWKDWSDUDSHWVDQGRWKHUURRIIHDWXUHVZLOO
DGHTXDWHO\VFUHHQWKHP$OLQHRIVLJKWGLDJUDPVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGWRFRQILUPWKDWSURSRVHG
VFUHHQLQJZLOOEHDGHTXDWH7KLVFRQGLWLRQDSSOLHVWRLQLWLDOFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGODWHU
LPSURYHPHQWV
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 60
5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&
*UDQG$YHQXH$5&
3DJH
$ILQDOODQGVFDSLQJSODQLQFOXGLQJLUULJDWLRQGHWDLOVDQGSODQVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQWDORQJZLWKZRUNLQJGUDZLQJV7KHOHJHQGIRUWKH
ODQGVFDSLQJSODQVKDOOLQFOXGHWKHVL]HVDQGVSHFLHVRIDOOJURXQGFRYHUVVKUXEVDQGWUHHV
ZLWKFRUUHVSRQGLQJV\PEROVIRUHDFKSODQWPDWHULDOVKRZLQJWKHLUVSHFLILFORFDWLRQVRQ
SODQV
D$Q\SURSRVHGODQGVFDSHOLJKWLQJVKDOOEHVKRZQRQSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJ
SHUPLWDQGSODQVVKDOOFOHDUO\LQGLFDWHOLJKWLQJWRXWLOL]HDQDUURZFRQHRIOLJKW QR
EULJKWHUWKDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZDWWV IRUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRQILQLQJWKHOLJKWWRWKH
REMHFWRILQWHUHVW
E6XEMHFWWRWKHILQDODSSURYDORIWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUIURQW\DUGDUHDV
VKDOOLQFOXGHDODQGVFDSHOD\RXWVLPLODUWRWKDWIRXQGDORQJWKLVSRUWLRQRI*UDQG
$YHQXHZKLFKJHQHUDOO\LQFOXGHVPRUHRSHQIURQW\DUGVZKLFKDUHQRWGHVLJQHGDV
SULPDU\RXWGRRUVSDFH7KHSURSRVHGLQFKKHGJHVKDOOEHUHSODFHGZLWKDOWHUQDWH
ODQGVFDSLQJ
F)URQW\DUGODQGVFDSLQJDQGODQGVFDSLQJDORQJWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\VKDOOEHRID
VXIILFLHQWKHLJKWGHQVLW\WRVFUHHQSDUNLQJVSDFHVEH\RQG DSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHW
PLQLPXPKHLJKW
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOLQFOXGHDILQDOIHQFLQJSODQLQGLFDWLQJWKH
IHQFLQJVW\OHORFDWLRQVDQGKHLJKWV
)LQDOPRQXPHQWVLJQGHVLJQDQGORFDWLRQVKDOOEHVKRZQRQSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUD
FRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLWDQGVKDOOEHWRWKHILQDODSSURYDORIWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
'LUHFWRU,IWKHVLJQLVSURSRVHGWREHLOOXPLQDWHGGHWDLOHGSODQVIRUVLJQLOOXPLQDWLRQVKDOO
EHLQFOXGHGZLWKWKHVLJQGHVLJQDQGOLJKWLQJVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGIRUFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH
&LW\¶V1LJKW6N\2UGLQDQFHDQGGHVLJQHGIRUGXUDELOLW\
7KHORFDWLRQRIDQ\UHTXLUHGEDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUDQGGRXEOHFKHFNDVVHPEO\VKDOOEH
VKRZQRQDOOVLWHSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJWKHODQGVFDSLQJSODQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQSODQVVKDOODOVRLQFOXGHDVFDOHGGLDJUDPRIWKHHTXLSPHQWSURSRVHG:KHUH
SRVVLEOHDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH8WLOLWLHV'LUHFWRUHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEHORFDWHGLQVLGHWKH
EXLOGLQJZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHIURQWSURSHUW\OLQH:KHUHWKLVLVQRWSRVVLEOHDVGHWHUPLQHG
E\WKH8WLOLWLHV'LUHFWRUWKHEDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUDQGGRXEOHFKHFNDVVHPEO\VKDOOEH
ORFDWHGLQWKHVWUHHW\DUGDQGVFUHHQHGXVLQJDFRPELQDWLRQRISDLQWFRORUODQGVFDSLQJDQG
LIGHHPHGDSSURSULDWHE\WKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUDORZZDOO7KHVL]HDQG
FRQILJXUDWLRQRIVXFKHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRUHYLHZDQGDSSURYDOE\WKH8WLOLWLHV
DQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUV
7KHDSSOLFDQWVKDOOGHIHQGLQGHPQLI\DQGKROGKDUPOHVVWKH&LW\DQGRULWVDJHQWV
RIILFHUVDQGHPSOR\HHVIURPDQ\FODLPDFWLRQRUSURFHHGLQJDJDLQVWWKH&LW\DQGRULWV
DJHQWVRIILFHUVRUHPSOR\HHVWRDWWDFNVHWDVLGHYRLGRUDQQXOWKHDSSURYDOE\WKH&LW\RI
WKLVSURMHFWDQGDOODFWLRQVUHODWLQJWKHUHWRLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRHQYLURQPHQWDO
UHYLHZ ³,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPV´ 7KH&LW\VKDOOSURPSWO\QRWLI\WKHDSSOLFDQWRIDQ\
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 61
5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&
*UDQG$YHQXH$5&
3DJH
,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPXSRQEHLQJSUHVHQWHGZLWKWKH,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPDQG&LW\VKDOOIXOO\
FRRSHUDWHLQWKHGHIHQVHDJDLQVWDQ,QGHPQLILHG&ODLP
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOLQFOXGHDPLQLPXPRIILYHVKRUWWHUPELF\FOH
SDUNLQJVSDFHVVXEMHFWWRDSSURYDOE\WKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU
Engineering Division
7KHEXLOGLQJSODQVXEPLWWDOVKDOOVKRZFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDOOVXEGLYLVLRQFRQGLWLRQVRI
DSSURYDOIRUWKHSURMHFW
3URMHFWVLQYROYLQJWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIQHZVWUXFWXUHVUHTXLUHVWKDWFRPSOHWHIURQWDJH
LPSURYHPHQWVEHLQVWDOOHGRUWKDWH[LVWLQJLPSURYHPHQWVEHXSJUDGHGSHUFLW\VWDQGDUG
0&
$Q\VHFWLRQRIGDPDJHGRUGLVSODFHGFXUEJXWWHUVLGHZDONRUGULYHZD\DSSURDFKVKDOOEH
UHSDLUHGRUUHSODFHGWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU
7KHH[LVWLQJGULYHZD\DSSURDFKWKDWLVWRUHPDLQVKDOOEHYHULILHGDVFRPSO\LQJZLWK$'$
DQG&LW\VWDQGDUGVIRUDFFHVVLELOLW\,IQRWDFFHVVLEOHWKHDSSURDFKVKDOOEHDOWHUHGRU
XSJUDGHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKFXUUHQWVWDQGDUGV7KHFXUUHQW&LW\DQG$'$VWDQGDUGUHTXLUHVD
¶VLGHZDONH[WHQVLRQEHKLQGWKHUDPS
7KHEXLOGLQJSODQVXEPLWWDOVKDOOVKRZDOOUHTXLUHGFKDQJHVWRWKHVLWHSODQIRUSDUNLQJ
FLUFXODWLRQWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU
D7KHSURSRVHGSDUDOOHOSDUNLQJVSDFHLQIURQWRI/RWVKDOOEHUHPRYHGLQIDYRURI
ODQGVFDSLQJ7KHGULYHZD\FXUEGHVLJQIRUWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\EHWZHHQ/RWV
DQGVKDOOZLGHQIURPIHHWWRDPLQLPXPRIIHHWV\PPHWULFDOO\
E$QDGGLWLRQDOSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHSURYLGHGLQEHWZHHQ/RWVDQG WRDFFRXQWIRU
WKHUHPRYDORIWKHSDUDOOHOSDUNLQJVSDFHUHIHUHQFHGLQDDERYH 7KHWZRSDUNLQJ
VSDFHVVKDOOEHOHQJWKHQHGWRIHHWIURPWKHSURSHUW\OLQHDORQJWKHFRPPRQDFFHVV
ZD\7KLVGLPHQVLRQFDQDVVXPHLQFKHVIRUYHKLFOHRYHUKDQJ
F7KHWZRSDUNLQJVSDFHVLQEHWZHHQ/RWVDQGVKDOOEHOHQJWKHQHGWRIHHWIURPWKH
SURSHUW\OLQHDORQJWKHFRPPRQDFFHVVZD\7KLVGLPHQVLRQFDQDVVXPHLQFKHVIRU
YHKLFOHRYHUKDQJ
'HYHORSPHQWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK3DUNLQJDQG'ULYHZD\6WDQGDUGVIRUGLPHQVLRQ
PDQHXYHUDELOLW\VORSHVGUDLQDJHDQGPDWHULDOV$OWHUQDWLYHSDYLQJPDWHULDOVDUH
UHFRPPHQGHGIRUZDWHUTXDOLW\DQGRUTXDOLW\FRQWUROSXUSRVHVDQGLQWKHDUHDRIH[LVWLQJ
RUSURSRVHGWUHHVDQGZKHUHWKHGULYHZD\RUSDUNLQJDUHDPD\RFFXUZLWKLQWKHGULSOLQHRI
DQ\WUHH$OWHUQDWLYHSDYLQJPDWHULDOVVKDOOEHDSSURYHGWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH3ODQQLQJ
'LYLVLRQ
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 62
5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&
*UDQG$YHQXH$5&
3DJH
7KH&LW\$UERULVWVKDOODSSURYHDOOSURSRVHGWUHHUHPRYDOVSULRUWREXLOGLQJSHUPLW
LVVXDQFHGHPROLWLRQSHUPLWVDQGRUJUDGLQJSHUPLWDSSURYDOV7KHWUHHVPD\EHUHPRYHG
LIWKH\DUHLQGHFOLQHDUHFUHDWLQJGDPDJHWRLQIUDVWUXFWXUHFDQ¶WEHUHDVRQDEO\SURWHFWHG
GXULQJGHPROLWLRQVRUDUHLQDUHDVRIQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGQHZWUHHSODQWLQJV7KHVLWH
GHYHORSPHQWSODQDQGSDUNLQJOD\RXWVKDOOFRQVLGHUSRWHQWLDOWUHHSUHVHUYDWLRQVLQWKHILQDO
GHVLJQ
7UHHVORFDWHGZLWKLQWKHEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWVDUHDSSURYHGIRUUHPRYDOLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK
DQDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJSHUPLW7KHRWKHUH[LVWLQJVLGH\DUGWUHHVVKDOOEHUHWDLQHGXQOHVV
RWKHUZLVHDSSURYHGIRUUHPRYDOE\WKH&LW\$UERULVWDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
'LUHFWRU$WUHHUHPRYDOSURSRVDOPD\UHTXLUHDUHSRUWIURPDFHUWLILHGDUERULVWZLWKD
VXPPDU\RIZK\WKHWUHHVFDQ¶WEHVDYHG,IDSSURYHGIRUUHPRYDOFRPSHQVDWRU\WUHH
SODQWLQJ V PD\EHUHTXLUHGWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&LW\$UERULVW
7KHEXLOGLQJSODQVXEPLWWDOVKDOOVKRZDOOH[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHGWUHHV2IIVLWHWUHHVZLWK
FDQRS\RUURRWV\VWHPVORFDWHGLQWKHDUHDRIWKHQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQVKDOOEHVKRZQIRU
UHIHUHQFH7KHSODQVKDOOVKRZDOOWUHHVWRUHPDLQDQGVKDOOLQFOXGHDSSURSULDWHWUHH
SUHVHUYDWLRQQRWHV
7KHILQDOODQGVFDSHSODQVKDOODJUHHZLWKWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOVLWHSODQDQGHQJLQHHUHGJUDGLQJ
DQGGUDLQDJHSODQ3ODQWLQJVSURSRVHGIRUGHWHQWLRQEDVLQDUHDVVKDOOEHHYDOXDWHGDQG
DSSURYHGE\WKHODQGVFDSHGHVLJQHUDQGWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR
2QHJDOORQVWUHHWWUHHVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGIRUHDFKOLQHDUIHHWRIIURQWDJH7KH&LW\
$UERULVWVKDOODSSURYHWKHWUHHVSHFLHVSODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGZKHWKHUWKHVWUHHWWUHHV
VKDOOEHSODQWHGLQWUHHZHOOVLQWKHVLGHZDONDUHDRUEHKLQGWKHEDFNRIZDONLQWKHIURQW
\DUG
7UHHSURWHFWLRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHLPSOHPHQWHGWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&LW\$UERULVW7KH
&LW\DUERULVWVKDOOUHYLHZDQGDSSURYHWKHSURSRVHGWUHHSURWHFWLRQPHDVXUHVSULRUWR
FRPPHQFLQJZLWKDQ\GHPROLWLRQJUDGLQJRUFRQVWUXFWLRQ$Q\VDIHW\SUXQLQJRUFXWWLQJ
RIVXEVWDQWLDOURRWVVKDOOEHDSSURYHGE\WKHFLW\DQGFRPSOHWHGE\DFLW\DSSURYHG
DUERULVW
Fire Department
%XLOGLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQW\SHZLOOUHTXLUH7\SH,,%ZLWKRQHKRXUILUHUDWHGVHSDUDWLRQ
EHWZHHQGZHOOLQJXQLWV3URMHFWZLOOUHTXLUHDQ1)3$ILUHVSULQNOHUV\VWHP7KHVH
UHTXLUHPHQWVDUHDWUDGHRIIIRUODFNRI)LUH'HSDUWPHQWODGGHUWUXFNDFFHVVWRWKHQHZ
EXLOGLQJ
)LUHVSULQNOHUV\VWHP26 <EDFNIORZGHYLFHVKDOOEHORFDWHGZLWKLQIHHWRIH[LVWLQJ
K\GUDQW
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 63
5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&
*UDQG$YHQXH$5&
3DJH
26 <EDFNIORZGHYLFHFDQEHORFDWHGYHUWLFDOO\LQVLGHWKHEXLOGLQJIDFLQJWKHVWUHHWLILW
LVLQDWZRKRXUILUHUDWHGURRPFORVHWZLWKH[WHULRUGRRUDFFHVV%DFNIORZGHYLFHVKDOOEH
ZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHSURSHUW\OLQHDWWKHVWUHHW
Utilities Department
6KHHW&GRHVQRWFXUUHQWO\VKRZWKHVHZHUODWHUDOVWKDWVHUYHHLWKHU/RWRU/RW6KHHW
&GRHVQRWVKRZKRZZDWHUVHUYLFHZLOOEHH[WHQGHGIURPWKHPHWHUWRHLWKHU/RWRU/RW
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOLQFOXGHDSODQWKDWGHOLQHDWHVWKHORFDWLRQRI
WKHSURSHUW\¶VH[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHGZDWHUPHWHU V ZDWHUVHUYLFHVDQGVHZHUODWHUDOVWR
WKHSRLQWVRIFRQQHFWLRQDWWKH&LW\ZDWHUDQGVHZHUPDLQV
7KHSURSHUW\¶VH[LVWLQJVHZHUODWHUDOVWRWKHSRLQWRIFRQQHFWLRQDWWKH&LW\PDLQPXVWSDVV
DYLGHRLQVSHFWLRQLQFOXGLQJUHSDLURUUHSODFHPHQWDVSDUWRIWKHSURMHFW7KH&&79
LQVSHFWLRQVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGGXULQJWKH%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW5HYLHZ3URFHVVIRUUHYLHZDQG
DSSURYDOE\WKH8WLOLWLHV'HSDUWPHQWSULRUWRLVVXDQFHRID%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW
3ULYDWHXWLOLW\HDVHPHQWVVKDOOEHSURYLGHGIRUZDWHUDQGVHZHULQIUDVWUXFWXUHWKDWLV
SURSRVHGWRFURVVSURSHUW\OLQHV LQFOXGLQJZDWHUVHUYLFHDQGVHZHUODWHUDOWKDWFURVVHV/RW
WRVHUYH/RWDQGWKDWFURVVHV/RWWRVHUYHORW
Note: Code requirements provided to applicant separately.
2QPRWLRQE\&RPPLVVLRQHU$QGUHHQVHFRQGHGE\&RPPLVVLRQHU1HPFLNDQGRQWKH
IROORZLQJUROOFDOOYRWH
$<(6 &RPPUV$QGUHHQ1HPFLN5RRW(KGDLHDQG:\QQ
12(6 &RPPUV&XUWLVDQG6ROO
5()5$,1 1RQH
$%6(17 1RQH
7KHIRUHJRLQJUHVROXWLRQZDVSDVVHGDQGDGRSWHGWKLVWKGD\RI$SULO
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
3KLO'XQVPRUH6HFUHWDU\
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 64
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 65
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 66
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 67
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 68
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 69
$WWDFKPHQW
PH2 - 70
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2015Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDINGAN APPEAL
(FILED BY LINDA WHITE AND KAREN ADLER) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION’S DESIGN APPROVAL; THEREBY DENYING THE
DESIGNS OF FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JUNE 2, 2015 (323/353 GRAND AVENUE, R-1 ZONE, FILE
NO. 25-13)
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission 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,for the purpose of design review for four new single-family
residences and associated site improvements (the “Project”)instituted under ARC 25-13, PB
Companies (“Applicant”) and continued the project to a date uncertain with five directional
items for modifications to the Project; and
WHEREAS,on April 6, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamberof City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, and granted design approval for the Project; and
WHEREAS,on April 15, 2015, Linda White and Karen Adler filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the design of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, 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, for the purpose of considering the April 15, 2015 appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission’saction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Architectural Review Commissionhearing and actions, testimony of the applicant,interested
parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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:
1.That the Project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity.
2.That the scale and mass of the proposed homes will have a negative impact on the existing
neighborhood, inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
PH2 - 71
Resolution No. _______________ (2015 Series) Attachment 8
Page 2
3.That the proposed home designs are not compatible with the overall character of the
neighborhood, inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines.
SECTION 2.Action. The City Council hereby denies the proposed project and therefore
upholds the appeal (filed by Linda White and Karen Adler) of the Architectural Review
Commission’s action.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of June 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 72
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
MBLNE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, CaIifoI
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD # 1746496
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
MAY 22, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(SignatUte of Principal Clerk)
DATED: MAY 22, 2015
AD COST: $209.00
MAY 26 2015
SLO CTi'
)Lit.
cnyor
smLasonwo
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites
all Interested ' persons to attend a public
hearings on Tuesday, June 2, 2015, at
6.00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Cham-
ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, relative to the following:
1�PPEAL OF E ARCHITECTURAL
REVIELV_M IS IdN'S DECISION TO
APPPRQVE THE QESIGN__OF FOUR'.
SINOLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES AND AS-
SOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LO-
C4R0 AT 323 AND 353 GRAND AVE-
NUE
A public hearing to consider an. appeal of
the Architectural Review Commission's de-
cislon to approve the design of four single-
family residences and associated site im-
provement located at 323 and 353 Grand
Avenue. For more information, you are invit-
ed to contact Marcus Cadoni of the City's
Community Development Department at
(805) 781.7176 or by email at mcarloni@
slaoy:org.
2. CITY'S DROUGHT ON E STIR
TEGY
A public hearing to consider the City's
Drought Response Strategy, including a
resolution declaring a drought emergency,
a resolution to meter new landscape instal-
lation or the use of modified landscape
plans during the drought emergency, an or-
dinance amending Chapter 13.07 of the
Municipal Code to include two- day -a -week
and time of day restrictions for outdoor wa-
tering; an incentive program for high effi-
clency toilets and washing machines; and
a resolution establishing a permit fee for
the use of the Corporation Yard non -
potable groundwater well. For more infor-
motion, you are invited to contact Ron
Munda of the City's Utilities Department at
(806) 781 -7258 or by email at
rmund 09locity.ora.
The City Council may also discuss other
hearings or business items before or after
the items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed projects in court, you may be lim-
ited to raising only those issues you Or
someone else raised at the public hearings
described in this notice, or in written corre-
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearings.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review in the City Clerk's Office and on-
line at www.slocity.org on Wednesday.
May 27, 2015. Please call the Clty Clerk's
Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more Informs-
ton. The City Council meeting will be We-
vised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
and live streaming on www.slocity.org.
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
May 22, 2015 1746496
Review of an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the design of four single-family residences and associated site improvements
June 2, 2015
Applicant: PB Companies
Representative: Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects
323/353 Grand Avenue
ARC 25-13
Outline
1.Situation/Recommendation
2.Site Description
3.Project Description
4.Background and project history
5.Analysis
2
Situation
City Council Review:
Due to appeal of ARC’s approval of the project
Determine the project’s consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City standards.
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) that denies the appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s approval, thereby granting final
design approval to the project based on findings of consistency
with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City
standards; subject to conditions as set forth in Attachment 1.
3
Vicinity Map
4
Zone: R-1
Size: 23,132 sf
Existing: Two residences
Vicinity Map
5
Zone: R-1
Size: 23,132 sf
Existing: Two residences
Site Photos
6
323 Grand Avenue
Site Photos
7
353 Grand Avenue
Site Photos
8
Looking up Grand Avenue at 323 Grand
Site Photos
9
Panoramic looking west (project site)
Panoramic looking east (across Grand Avenue)
Project Description
10
1)Construction of four detached single-family residences (two story
homes)
2)Common access driveway (porous pavers) with guest parking spaces.
3)Tree Removals:
Approved by City Arborist for trees within residence footprints
4)Craftsman Architecture
Horizontal siding, decorative base wainscoting, board and batten
accenting, and wood outlookers.
Covered porches with tapered columns and brick bases
Project Description
11
Lot 1 Lot 4
Project Description
12
Lot 2
Lot 3
Background
13
PC Approval
August 14, 2013
ARC Continuance
January 21, 2015
ARC Approval
April 6, 2015
ARC Appeal
April 15, 2015
City Council Review
June 2, 2015
Approved Subdivision with
Exceptions:
1)Allowed creation of 4
parcels from 2.
2)Publicly noticed per legal
requirements
3)Agenda correspondence
letters received
4)Members of public spoke
at PC hearing
5)No appeal.
Background
14
PC Approval
August 14, 2013
ARC Continuance
January 21, 2015
ARC Approval
April 6, 2015
ARC Appeal
April 15, 2015
City Council Review
June 2, 2015
Four Main Directional Items
1)Revise on-site circulation for
compliance with Parking and
Driveway standards
2)Lots 1 & 4: reduce overall
square footage and mass to
approximately 2,000 sq.ft.
3)Lots 2 & 3: reduce overall
square footage and mass to
approximately 2,400 sq.ft.
4)Reduce square footage/mass
by maintaining similar building
footprints and reducing size of
upper floors
Compliance with:
1)ARC Direction
2)Community Design Guidelines
3)Applicant reduced the size and
scale of the residences
Concerns with:
1)Community Design Guidelines
compliance including:
2)Size and scale of residences
3)Neighborhood compatibility
Review appeal of
ARC’s design approval
Analysis
15
ARC appeal submitted by Karen Adler and Linda White (Attachment 4) indicates
CDG compliance concerns specifically related the following sections:
Community Design Guideline 5.1 Goals for Residential Project Design:
These guidelines are intended to encourage well designed residential neighborhoods that people enjoy living in, which: reduce
the visual dominance of the automobile; promote pedestrian activity; create variety and interest in the appearance of
residential streets; provide community open space; and protect significant features of the natural environment.
Community Design Guideline 5.3.A General principles. Infill residential development should:
1.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.Continue existing neighborhood patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches and entries facing the street,
finished floor height, and garages located at the rear of lots.
Community Design Guideline 5.3.B Building design:
An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the
neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details.
Analysis
16
Staff Response:
1.ARC Reduced Home Sizes for Neighborhood Compatibility
Size reduction
Scale reduction
Square footage mainly removed from upper floors
Provides increased articulation of upper floors resulting in reduced massing for
compatibility with the neighborhood
Lot Previous Sq.Ft. ARC Direction Proposed Sq.Ft. Reduced
1 2,258 2,000 1,995 263
2 2,886 2,400 2,379 507
3 2,650 2,400 2,364 286
4 2,425 2,000 1,963 462
Analysis
19
Lot 1 (east elevation)
Analysis
20
Lot 4 (north elevation)
Analysis
21
Staff Response:
1.ARC Reduced Home Sizes for Neighborhood Compatibility
Size reduction
Scale reduction
Square footage mainly removed from upper floors
Provides increased articulation of upper floors resulting in reduced massing for
compatibility with the neighborhood
2.Home Sizes Consistent/Compatible with Existing Adjacent Homes (and those in the
immediate vicinity per CDG 5.3.A1).
Lot Previous Sq.Ft. ARC Direction Proposed Sq.Ft. Reduced
1 2,258 2,000 1,995 263
2 2,886 2,400 2,379 507
3 2,650 2,400 2,364 286
4 2,425 2,000 1,963 462
Vicinity Map (living space to lot size)
22
29%
25%
24%
39%
34%
29%
41%
43%
31%
48%
40%
13% 8%
Vicinity Map
23
2,886 sf
2,134 sf
1,520 sf
2,380 sf
2,380 sf
1,712 sf
2,807 sf
2,826 sf
2,438 sf
2,438 sf
2,022 sf
934 sf
800 sf
Analysis
24
Staff Response:
3.Project Detailing Consistent/Compatible with Existing Adjacent Homes
Project incorporates architectural elements commonly found in the neighborhood
Low sloped hip/gable roofs, vertical/horizontal siding, stucco, covered porches,
visible garage access
Analysis:
25
1)On-site parking
8 garaged spaces
8 driveway spaces
6 guest spaces
Summary
Over the course of two public hearings that ARC considered the size and scale of the
proposed residences, directed modifications, the applicant complied with ARC direction,
ultimately receiving approval based on CDG consistency.
Consistent with the CDG, overall design and detailing of the proposed residences
incorporate architectural characteristics that are found in the existing neighborhood
(CDG 5.3.A).
Consistent with the CDG, the size/scale of the infill residences is compatible with the
existing neighborhood (CDG 5.3.A).
Consistent with the CDG, the proposed project is compatible with adjacent buildings and
those in the immediate neighborhood (CDG 5.3.A1) while also creating variety and
interest in the appearance of residential streets (CDG 5.1)
26
Recommendation
27
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) that denies the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s approval, thereby granting final design approval to the
project based on findings of consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City standards; subject to conditions as set forth in
Attachment 1.
Appeal of Proposed Project at 323/353 Grand Avenue
The proposed home designs are not compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
5.3 Infill Development.
Individual homes that entirely replace existing units or are constructed on vacant parcels between existing units.
The guidelines are intended to provide for infill projects that are compatible with existing development and to
preserve the historical character of the City’s older neighborhoods.
5.3 B. Building Design.
An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood.
The existing neighborhood is an eclectic style of bungalow and ranch homes typical of the 1950’s.
There are no two-story Craftsman style homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
236 Grand 430 Grand 250 Grand
Appeal of Proposed Project at 323/353 Grand Avenue
The scale and mass of the proposed homes will have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood.
5.3 A. General Principles.
Infill development should 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. When new homes are developed adjacent to
older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact
on the adjacent, smaller scale buildings.
395 Grand
311 Grand
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fredericks Street
McCollum Street
5,166
s.f.
5,553
s.f.
5,202
s.f.
5,031
s.f.
10
,
4
0
0
s.
f
.
1 + 1 + 1 = 4
PB Companies (“the Applicant”)purchased two adjoining lots 323 and 353 Grande Avenue located in an R -1 Low Density Residential Zone.
The combined size of the two parcels could be split into three legal lots according to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code zoning ordinance.
An R-1 Residential Zone allows one house with 5-bedrooms so the Applicant could legally build three houses with five bedrooms each .
However, the Applicant wanted to build four houses.
So the Applicant applied for an exception to the City’s zoning ordinance to enable him to subdivide the property into four “substandard” lots.
(This means each lot is smaller than allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance of 6,000 square feet minimum lot size .)
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Title 17: ZONING
Chapter 17.24 Low-Density Residential (R-1) Zone
17.24.020 Property Development Standards
1.Minimum lot area: 6,000 square feet.
2.Minimum lot width: 50 feet.
3.Minimum lot depth: 90 feet.
323 GRAND AVENUE 353 GRAND AVENUE
Project Inception
BEDROOM = $$
5165 s.f.
5552 s.f.5202 s.f.
5031 s.f.
LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3
LOT 4
The Planning Commission held a hearing on August 12, 2013 before four Commissioners. No residents from the neighborhood appeared.
Neighbors in the surrounding neighborhoods did not attend the hearing because they were not aware of the project.
The Community Development Department claims that notification cards were sent to neighboring properties within 300 feet of the project
Linda White owns a home at 250 Grand Avenue -within the 300 foot boundary -and no notification card was sent to her address.
Any failure to notify a resident is magnified when such a small area is notified.
.
August 12, 2013: Planning Commission
Where are the neighbors?
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
CHURCH
PROPERTY
Linda’s
Property
Commissioners Michael Draze, John Larson, Michael Multari, and Chuck Stevenson heard from the Applicant.
.
August 12, 2013: Planning Commission
Planning Commission Discussion
We would get
three lots with houses and
secondary dwelling units. So
we decided to limit our overall
units to four, reducing from
six to four.
17.21.010 Secondary dwelling units.(SLOMC Zoning Ordinance) C.General Requirements.
4.Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or secondary dwelling unit must be owner-occupied as an owner’s primary residence
?
Applicant’s Testimony 8/12/2013
The Commissioners expressed concerns about the intensity of the development in violation of the City’s zoning ordinance.
The Applicant argued that three lots would allow him to build three 5 -bedroom houses plus three secondary dwelling units .
The Planning Commission overlooked the owner occupancy requirement of an secondary dwelling unit -the Applicant must live there.
VS.
Discussions between Planning Commissioners, August 12, 2013:
Comm. Multari: These smaller lots are not consistent with the neighborhood. It’s R-1. But the immediate PD project
(Leroy Court) creates conflict. The developer is just going to make the houses as big as they can make
them and fill them with students because it’s 1 1/2 blocks from Cal Poly. Then we’re going to have to
squeeze in parking to accommodate that. I’m skeptical that it’s an “efficient use of space” because we
don’t know the size of the units.
Comm. Larson: The density issue: you could argue both directions. Compatibility with surrounding neighborhood: you
can probably argue that in both directions as well. So that means you’ve got to look at the design.
Comm. Stevenson:.The problem is that Architectural Review overlaps the Planning Commission so we don’t know the
size of the units
Comm. Multari: This is what makes me nervous. We’re opening the door to a very dense development on a tight piece
of property on a busy street in an R-1 neighborhood. Most of the houses, frankly, are not substandard
or less than 6,000 square feet.
August 12, 2013: Planning Commission
Planning Commission acknowledged the substandard lots are inconsistent with the existing neighborhood.
93
5
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
9,
3
7
0
s.
f
.
9,
5
8
3
s.
f
.
10
,
4
0
0
s.
f
.
Comm. Multari: What is the square footage of lots from Grand Avenue to Albert Street on Fredericks and on McCollum?
Planner Carloni: We didn’t research it that far but I believe they’re in the 7,000 range. Maybe 7,000 to 7,500.**
August 12, 2013: Planning Commission
There were more questions….
LEROY COURT
PUD
**The actual average square footage of the lots is 10,031 s.f.
3,031 s.f.-2,531 s.f.more than the figure represented to Planning Commission
**Staff’s Attachment -311 Grand 8,420 s.f.
Assessor’s records -311 Grand 10,019 s.f.
**10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
10
,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
Photos of Homes Used in Applicant’s Proposal
Neighborhood map
With arrows corresponding
McCollum Project
320 Grand . Lot is 6,032 sf
McCollum Project
1825 McCollum . Lot is 6,901 sf
Leroy Court
The ‘McCollum Project’ has a density ratio of 20%
The Applicant’s project has a density ratio of 42%
Leroy Court
Leroy Court
Leroy Court was developed a decade ago under special “relaxed” zoning rules at a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The goal of the development was to provide workforce housing to the City, however it has become rental housing for college st udents.
Discussion of Leroy Court at ARC Hearing: January 21, 2015
ARC determined Leroy Court was NOT applicable to the Applicant’s project because it was approved under Planned Unit
Development rules which have different zoning rules and different standards applicable.
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Mc
C
o
l
l
u
m
S
t
.
Fr
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
s
S
t
.
Grand Ave.
Leroy Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Leroy
Court
Mc
C
o
l
l
u
m
S
t
.
Fr
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
s
S
t
.
Grand Ave.
Actual Neighborhood Comparisons
pPROJECT
292 Grand Ave
410 Grand Ave
1810 Hope @ Grand Ave
346 Grand Ave
Actual IFurther emphasizes the project’s incompatibility
Actual Neighborhood Comparisons
PROJECT
236 Grand
166 Grand
210 Grand
Actual Neighborhood Comparisons
PROJECT
250 Grand
254 Grand
292 Grand
Actual Neighborhood Comparisons
PROJECT
430 Grand
476 Grand
410 Grand
The Applicant could build more bedrooms to the property
by applying the existing the R-1 zoning on standard lots.
R-1 is “Low Density” and R-2 is … “Lower Density”??
Discussions About Zoning
“The R-2 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for people
who want compact residences close to commercial and public services.”
SLOMC 17.26
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE
“The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for
people who want a private open space associated with individual
dwellings.” SLOMC 17.24
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
The Commissioners considered the difference between the existing “Low Density” R-1 zoning and allowing for R-2 “Medium Density”
R-1
Density Unit calculation =
Three
5-Bedroom Houses
on standard lots
R-2
Density Unit calculation =
Four
3-Bedroom Houses
Density Unit Values
Studio Apartment = 0.50 unit.
One-bedroom dwelling = 0.66 units
Two-bedroom dwelling = 1.00 unit
Three-bedroom dwelling = 1.5 units
Dwelling with 4+ bedrooms = 2.00 units (12 Bedrooms Total)(15 Bedrooms Total)
Comm. Multari: If it were an R-2 lot, density would come into play. It would have limitations. But not with R-1. With R-1,
a house is a house is a house.
Comm. Stevenson: I’m hung up on the unit size. I know that’s not really our purview. But if these were R-2 there would
be a problem. Here we have R-1 which is not limited, so…
Comm. Multari: I’m leaning toward supporting it because they could subdivide into three lots and could get one house
with five bedrooms plus a secondary dwelling unit on each. Which is the better option here?
Discussions About Zoning
The Dilemma
VS.
VS.
Planning Commissioners did not consider that secondary dwelling
units must be owner occupied on legal lots.
Planning Commissioners were swayed by the Applicant’s contention
that the project would include six units.
The Fallacy vs. The Facts
Planning Commission’s Recommendations to ARC
Discussions About Safety
“It’s on Grand Avenue.
So there’s little chance that any
activity could spill out into a
‘street party’ because people
would get run over on
Grand Avenue.”
Applicant’s Testimony 8/12/2013
Planning Commission supported project with Recommendations to the ARC to consider one driveway accessing all parcels
on the project site which would result in the elimination of backing out onto Grand Avenue from lot 1.
Comm. Multari:
The problem is cars that are going to back out onto Grand
which is a pretty busy street. I was wondering if we had a
condition that said –and probably the ARC will do this
anyway –if Lot 1 were to be developed, that it would have
a driveway configuration that would avoid backing out onto
Grand Avenue. Hopefully ARC will have enough good sense
to consider that in their analysis.
LOT 1 G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
There were concerns about the safety of Grand Avenue…
January 21, 2015: Architectural Review Commission
Project brought to ARC on condition of approval by Planning Commission of four substandard lots. The four lots are “sensitive sites” due to their
substandard size. Considerations must be made about the privacy of neighbors and compatibility with existing neighborhood.
What is a “sensitive site”?
Applicant’s Project Proposal
The Applicant proposed four large, two-story residences on four “substandard” lots in an R-1 Residential Neighborhood.
“Sensitive site” means the site was determined by the Planning Commission to have special characteristics and constraints
such as visual prominence, privacy of the neighbors and compatibility with the existing neighborhood,
requiring more detailed development review and consideration than would otherwise be required.
Continue the project with direction to the applicant to :
-Revise the on-site circulation.**
-Reduce the overall square footage of the proposed residences (to 2,000 s.f.for lots 1 & 4 and to 2,400 s.f.for lots 2 & 3);
-Size reduction should include elimination of accessory rooms such as the “media rooms” on lots 1, 3, and 4 and the “den” on lot 2.
Condition 1. Density for this project is limited to four 4-bedroom residences. A “Conditions of Use of Structure” agreement that
stipulates that each dwelling shall have no more than four bedrooms, as defined in the Zoning Regulations, will need to be si gned in the
presence of a notary and submitted prior to construction permit issuance. This agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City
Attorney.
**Staff did not follow Planning Commission’s recommendation to eliminate driveway from lot 1 to prevent vehicles
from backing onto Grand Avenue.
Staff Recommendation
2,258 s.f.
4-bedroom+media room
3-bath
2,866 s.f.
4-bedroom+den
4-bath
2,650 s.f.
4-bedroom+home office
3-bath
2,425 s.f.
4-bedroom+media room
3-bath
On April 6, 2015, ARC reviewed Applicants updated project plan.
Lot 1 includes 4-bedrooms plus a “media room” that is 13’ x 13’ Lot 2 includes 4 -bedrooms plus a “den” that is 10’3” x 14’
April 6, 2015: Continuance of Architectural Review Commission
The “Accessory Rooms” Were Not Eliminated
Lot 3 includes 4 bedrooms plus a “home office” that is 15’8” x 11’5” Lot 4 includes 4 bedrooms plus a “media room” that is 9’6” x 13’6”
April 6, 2015: Continuance of Architectural Review Commission
ARC Approved with Comms. Curtis and Soll Dissenting
Commissioner Curtis’ Dissent @ 54:00 on ARC Transcript
“I appreciate the revisions to response to some of the directions that were made at the last meeting.However,I
agree with comments that are made in Ken Schwarz’s letter.I agree very much with the sentiments articulated in
that letter.It’s important to keep in mind here that we’re dealing with lots that are of substandard size and
we’re dealing with houses that are much larger than the average size in the neighborhood.So we’re given both
smaller lots and larger houses,and the houses are larger than other houses in the neighborhood.I find that to
be inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines which are applicable.Mainly,section 5.3.A.which deals
with infill development,General Principles.“Infill development should be compatible in scale,siting and overall
character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.”The fact that these are larger
houses on substandard lots,I think,it is not consistent with the established neighborhood character in that area.
I appreciate the fact that the applicant did reduce the size and did it on the upper floors to get more
articulation,which is what we asked for.However,I don’t think he went quite far enough in reducing the size of
the units to reduce the bulk and the mass to be more compatible with the neighborhood…The standard that is
not yet accomplished is the one that is paramount in my mind.And for that reason I will not support a motion as
it’s currently embodied.But I would be in support of a motion to further reduce the size of the individual units to
reflect the overall character of the neighborhood and reflect the fact that these are substandard size lots.”
Commissioner Andreen Comment:
“It’s a difficult situation for the neighborhood. Planning Commission already approved the lots. I’m concerned for
the neighbors but it is compatible with what’s around it. The precedent has been set with the Leroy Court
project. The original neighborhood has already changed quite a bit. And with the rules we’re given now, I think
to have someone come this far and for at the last minute say “no” –I’m just not comfortable with that so I’m
going to support it.”
Manipulating with Statistics*
*"Using numbers in such a manner that -either by intent, or through ignorance or carelessness –
the conclusions are unjustified or incorrect."
To justify subdividing the property into substandard lots, the Applicant presented a list containing lots “under 6000 square feet
within 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project.” Some lots on the list were 6000 square feet and not substandard.
Many were located outside of the vicinity of the project, south of the 101 freeway and/or west of the railroad tracks.
Statistics Presented to Planning Commission by Applicant
He does not make any correlation
between the substandard lot size
and the size of the house on the lot.
The substandard lots on the
Applicant’s list contain small houses
with 1 -3 bedrooms that average
25% lot coverage.
Manipulating with Statistics*
Statistics Presented to Planning Commission by Applicant
Substandard Lots Within ½ Mile
The average substandard lot:
5,377 s.f.
The average bedrooms/baths:
2.5 bedrooms/1.5 baths
The average home size:
1,310 s.f.
The average living/lot ratio
25%
Applicant’s Project
The average substandard lot:
5,238 s.f.
The average bedrooms/baths:
4 bedrooms/3.25 baths
Project’s average home size:
2,176 s.f.
The average living/lot ratio:
42%
Manipulating with Statistics
Presentation to Architectural Review Committee by Applicant
After gaining approval from Planning Commission for the substandard lots, the Applicant presented ARC with data claiming the project should be
comprised of four large 5-bedroom houses because he claimed neighborhood is comprised of large homes.
Applicant’s Exhibit to ARC to Show Conformance with Neighborhood
LOT s.f.
LOT s.f.
LOT s.f.LOT s.f.
LOT s.f.LOT s.f.Existing Neighborhood
House (s.f.) Lot (s.f.) % Coverage
(1) 2,380 6,901 34.5%
(2) 2,380 6,032 39.5%
(3) 1,520 6,280 24.2%
(4) 1,712 5,810 29.5%
(5) 2,886 10,019 28.8%
(6)2,134 10,019 21.3%
(7)934 6,970 13.4%
(8)800 10,400 7.9%
Average 24.9 %
Applicant’s Project
House (s.f.) Lot (s.f.) % Coverage
(1) 1,995 5,166 38.6%
(2) 2,379 5,553 42.8%
(3) 2,364 5,202 45.4%
(4)1,963 5,031 39.0%
Average 41.4%
The Applicant’s project is not consistent with the
density of the neighborhood
1 2 3 4
5 6
7
8
Applicant’s Exhibit to Show Conformance with Neighborhood
When all surrounding homes on the Applicant’s map are
included, the density home-to-lot ratio is 23.2%
Existing Neighborhood
House (s.f.) Lot (s.f.) % Coverage
Orange/blue existing homes 24.9 %
(1) 1,364 6,750 20.2%
(2) 1,224 6,750 18.1%
(3) 1,300 5,000 26.0%
(4) 884 5,000 17.6%
(5) 1,634 6,220 26.2%
(6) 2,318 8,090 28.6%
(7) 1,326 6,000 22.1%
(8) 1,602 6,000 26.7%
(9) 1,312 6,000 21.8%
(10) 2,438 10,200 23.9%
(11) 2,571 10,200 25.2%
(12) 1,562 10,200 15.3%
(13) 1,568 10,200 15.3%
(14) 2,360 10,200 23.1%
(15) 1,569 10,200 15.3%
(16) 1,395 10,200 13.6%
(17) 1,971 10,200 19.3%
(18) 2,088 10,200 20.4%
(19)2,992 9,350 32.0%
Average (1-19) 21.6%
Applicant’s Project
House (s.f.) Lot (s.f.) % Coverage
(1) 1,995 5,166 38.6%
(2) 2,379 5,553 42.8%
(3) 2,364 5,202 45.4%
(4)1,963 5,031 39.0%
Average 41.4%
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
14
13
12
17
16
19
18
Homes Used as Comparison’s in Applicant’s Proposal
Parking Overflow
n McCollum
ooking from Grand
The Applicant used the recent project on McCollum and
Grand as an example. This project has a house -to-lot ratio
of 20% yet has problems with density, parking and noise.
The Proposed Project is Not Compatible with the Community Design Guidelines
The scale and mass of the proposed homes will have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood.
The proposed home designs are not compatible in scale, detailing and overall character of the neighborhood.
Community Design Guidelines.
A.General Principles.
Infill residential development should:
1.Be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborh ood. This is
critical 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 bui ldings.
2.Continue existing neighborhood patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches facing the street, etc.)
B. Building Design.
An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in t he neighborhood,
including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation, and other details.
C. Visual Impacts from Building Height.
The height of the infill projects should be consistent with the 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 the impacts on adjacent small er homes and to
protect solar access.
The project, as proposed, will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of those working or living in the area.
City Council’s Recommendation
The City Council should require that the project be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines.
1.Require the project to conform with the existing neighborhood in size and scale, consistent with smaller
homes on substandard lots which average sized home is 1,310 square feet and approximately 25%
density coverage –residence square footage to lot size.
2.Require that the home designs are compatible with the overall character of the existing neighborhood
which was built in the 1950’s and includes bungalow and ranch style homes.
3.Require that the project conform to the Planning Commission’s direction, with safety in mind, so that
cars share a common driveway which allows them circulation to turn their vehicle around and exit onto
Grand Avenue in a forward direction
4.Require the deletion of the accessory rooms that are readily used as bedrooms (ie. “media room,”
“den,” “home office”)
la
-t+ 2
city of
...'y San tulS OBISp0
Filing Fee
Tree Appeal: $109.00
All Other Appeals: $273.00
Pa' k
1. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
Date Received
APR l.:; `r` ',
!
Saco, G4 43ye�
NameCt(t JMailing Address and Zip Code
Phone Fax &;
Kw-e-', )qlf& acs . krG�r�drl�oa 1 s�Or. s�o >�4' 9311e
RepFesentati Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
10—
Title _ Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
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:
A6 a,
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: Vm4m
3. The application or project was entitled:,-/ 3
4. 1 discussed the matter with the fojlowing City staff member:
aiexw 0&4 on o o70 ,�
(Staft Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom-
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action /s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Reason for Appeal continued
Pre. en 'e- 6t 3 2MAt.61 ave.) de—W-net 9Yt4;&_
1wrA
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public pafticipation rrr local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, ,due to real costs associated with, City
Council consideration of an appeal, including publianotifit*_atidn; =all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $273% which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A,continuanceimay be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance,'you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request,for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and /or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appPal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
or'- C) -7 - .70
(Signature of Appellarit) . (Date)
Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has
already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is hereby calendared for
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
07/13
Page 2 of 3
r
City Administration
990 Palm Street Sari Luis Obispo CA 93401 -3249
805 781 i 1 14
�;lo�aly uiy
May 1, 2015
Linda White
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — 323/353 GRAND AVENUE - APPEAL OF FOUR NEW
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Dear Ms. Linda White,
This letter shall serve to advise you that your appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clerk's
Office on April 15, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
June 2, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available on
the City's website at www.slocity.org, agenda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday, May 27,
2015.
As the appellant you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During the Public Hearing,
appellant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
i
none a
City Clerk
cc: City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Department
t City Administration
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 -3249
805 781 7114
-- slocily uiq
May 1, 2015
Karen Adler
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — 3231353 GRAND AVENUE - APPEAL OF FOUR NEW
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Dear Ms. Karen Adler,
This letter shall serve to advise you that your appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clerk's
Office on April 15, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
June 2, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available on
the City's website at www.slocity.or Benda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday, May 27,
2015.
As the appellant you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During the Public Hearing,
appellant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Si cerely,
r
e'. C
I J. Me is
City Clerk
cc: City M nager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Department
�r
City Administration
'490 P:W-7 51:r; rt ^;stn Luis .)ti5pr) (rA 9340 1 3249
4 801.) 781 . ' 1. <1
;IUCi,J r;ri,.
May 4, 2015
PB Companies, LLC
Attn: Ryan Petetit
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — 323/353 GRAND AVENUE - APPEAL OF FOUR NEW
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Dear Mr. Ryan Petetit,
This letter shall serve to advise you that an appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clerk's
Office on April 15, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
June 2, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available on
the City's website at www.slocity.org/agenda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday, May 27,
2015.
As the applicant, you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During the Public Hearing,
applicant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
cc: City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Department
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Lus Obispo GA 93401 -3249
805 781 711.4
slocity Dry
May 4, 2015
PB Companies, LLC
Attn: John Belsher
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — 323/353 GRANT) AVENUE - APPEAL OF FOUR NEW
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Dear Mr. John Belsher,
This letter shall serve to advise you that an appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clerk's
Office on April 15, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
June 2, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available on
the City's website at www.slocit y�org/a eg nda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday, May 27,
2015.
As the applicant, you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During the Public Hearing,
applicant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
City Clerk
cc: City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Department