HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-0049-2019 (974 Rachel) Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
Development review of a new two-story single-family residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a
sloping lot with a street yard reduction of 14 feet, where 20 feet is normally required (Attachment 1,
Project Description and Plans). The project site is part of a Tract development known as SLO Terrace
that includes 17 single-family residential lots. Resolution No. ARC-1017-13 Condition No. 3 identified
Lots 17 & 18 to be merged (merger approved on April 17, 2015 under application SBDV-0505-2014),
and these merged lots are identified as “sensitive sites”, which require Architectural Review
Commission review and approval (Attachment 2, Previous ARC Report and Resolution).
General Location: The project site is located on
an existing 7,841-square foot lot with direct
access off Rachel Court. The property is a
downward sloping lot from northeast to
southwest with an average cross slope of
19.6%.
Present Use: No current use
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses:
East: Conservation/Open Space
West: Single-family residence
North: Conservation/Open Space
South: Single-family residences
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Farmhouse Style
Design details: Gable roof, below grade garage, elevated front entry, chimney, inclusive of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Materials: Horizontal lap siding, Vertical board and batten siding, board formed concrete, standing
seam metal roof, concrete retaining walls, steel and glass railings, brick pavers, and redwood decking.
Colors: Primary color, white; accent trim color, off-white; roof, light-grey
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Colin Patterson, CDD Intern &
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 974 Rachel Court FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0049-2019
APPLICANT: Kaitlin Hewell REPRESENTATIVE: Ryan Brockett
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Packet Page 11
ARCH-0049-2019
974 Rachel Court
Page 2
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the residence in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to
the Community Development Director.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
4.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 5.3 –Infill Development
§5.3.A – General Principles
The ARC should discuss whether the project design is compatible in scale,
siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings in the vicinity.
§5.3.A – Visual Impacts
from Building Height
The ARC should discuss the height of the proposed project for consistency
with surrounding residential structures in consideration of step-backs from
upper stories and solar access for adjacent residences.
Chapter 7.2 – Hillside Development Building Design
§7.2.B.1 Overall design
The ARC should discuss whether the project conforms to the natural slopes
and maintains as low of a profile as feasible.
§7.2.B.4 Colors and
Materials
The ARC should discuss whether the colors and materials of the project
blend with the natural appearance of the hillside on a south-facing slope.
§7.2.B.6 Downhill Building
Walls
The ARC should discuss the downhill building wall step-backs where the
building height on the downhill side of the house steps back in 13-foot
increments a distance of 5-feet where 10-feet is normally required.
The City Zoning Regulations (§17.70.090) include guidance and standards for development of hillside
properties. The Hillside Development Standards are applicable for properties with an average cross
slope greater than 16% (the subject property has an average cross slope of 19.6%).
The applicant has requested a relaxation to one of the development standards for the downhill
building wall step-back requirement, where the building height on the downhill side of the residence
is intended to provide an upper story setback in 15-foot increments with a 10-foot separation. The
applicant’s application identifies a 5-foot separation at 13-foot increments.
The Hillside Development Standards state that the Director may grant exceptions to a hillside
regulation, such as the downhill building wall requirement, subject to specific findings 1 . Staff has
evaluated the project against the relevant findings and found it to be in substantial compliance, the
findings will be incorporated into the Director’s review proceeding the recommendation by the ARC.
Packet Page 12
ARCH-0049-2019
974 Rachel Court
Page 3
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks – Street Yard 14 feet* 20 feet
Setbacks – Side Yard 8 feet 8 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 26.3 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 24% 50%
Required Parking Spaces 2 2
Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 74-13) adopted with
Architectural Review Commission Resolution No. 1017-13.
*Zoning Regulations §17.70.170.D.2.a. Upon approval of a Director’s Action front and street side setbacks
may be reduced to 10 feet for structures.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2 Recommend denial the project. An action denying the application should include findings
that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Description & Project Plans
7.2 Previous ARC Report and Resolution – December 16, 2013
1 Zoning Regulations §17.70.090.D.3. Director’s Action. Findings. Each Director’s Action to grant an exception to a required
hillside regulation shall be subject to each of the following findings… (a) The proposed alternative complies with and
furthers the intent of this Section; and (b) The proposed alternative provides a design solution that is equivalent to or
better than the standards prescribed in this Section…; and (c) The location and design of the feature receiving the
exception will minimize impacts to scenic resource…; and (d) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City -
adopted plans…; and (e) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not
apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning…; and (f) The exception will not constitute a grant of special
privilege…; and (g) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare…; and (h) Site development cannot be
feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project or redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable
use of the property…
Packet Page 13
974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCE
ARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATEMENT
3/5/19
LOT 17, 974 Rachel Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN: 003-661-034
ZONE: R-2
Lot Size: 7,841 SF (0.18 AC)
Avg Lot Slope = 19.6%
The enclosed project proposes to construct a new multi-level residence on existing vacant R-2 lot, at 974 Rachel Court, Lot 17 of
the SLO Terrace Development in San Luis Obispo, California. Project is designed as a 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom approx. 1,681 SF
residence with enclosed 685 SF 2-car Garage/Storage plus 495 SF ADU. The site is an existing parcel at the end of a cul-de-sac,
with existing concrete block retaining walls at South front and West side property lines, along with concrete storm drain culvert
at North rear property lines. The Terrace Hill Open Spacer abuts the rear of the property.
The project was previously submitted and reviewed as a Pre-Application, (PRE-1854-2018), around September 2018.
Per Overall Site Plan Sheet A1, an average cross-slope has been calculated at 19.6%, just under the 20% threshold. Distance
taken is from southwest property line corner at Rachel Ct to north property line at 101’-1”. Since the lot is an irregular shape,
this measurement is assumed to be perpendicular and running directly through the main residence. Spot elevations were
determined at the southwest property corner of 314’ and close to the north property line at 333.8’, taken at a point in front of
existing concrete drainage swale, per SLO Zoning Standards 17.70.090-B.2 and/or B.3. The existing swale is a right-of-way
improvement with unbuildable site setback extending beyond.
The proposed residence is designed as multi-level, with mostly two stories above a single story Garage & Storage podium base.
In order to maintain a consistent appearance with adjacent existing residences to the west of the property, we are designing
within the established finish floor differential between adjacent homes. The directly adjacent 960 Rachel Ct residence has a
lower garage at 315.37’ with upper floor at 325.37. The residence at 954 Rachel Ct has a lower garage at 311.66’ and upper
floor at 321.66’. This equals an existing floor differential between residences of approx. 3.71’.
The proposed project locates the lower garage at 316.98’ and main floor at 327.48’ (at Guest Bedroom) to 328.48 (at
Kitchen/Living/Dining). Therefore, creating a floor differential of 1.61’ at garage and 2.11’-3.11’ at main level.
With a maximum building height of 35’ and a site slope greater than 16%, height is determined by an “imaginary plane parallel
to grade” per SLO Zoning Regulations 17.70.080-B. Per this determination, our maximum height to top of roof above ADU
Sleeping Loft is approx. 26’-3 above existing grade.
While the previous development CCR’s for Lots 17/18 do not allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit, the project proposes including an
attached unit behind the Guest Bedroom of the main residence, as allowed by SLO Zoning Regulations and state regulations.
The single studio ADU is proposed as approx. 400 SF on the main floor and 90 SF at upper level sleeping loft accessed by stair.
The ADU is accessed from the street & driveway by a stair on the west side of the property.
The project is setback 8’-0” from the west property line, allowing a maximum building height between 18’-19’ at this edge. At
the highest point on this elevation taken from the eave of the ADU sleeping area down to existing grade is shown at 18’-11”.
Per SLO Zoning R-2 Development Standards 17.18.020, a 20’ minimum front setback is required. The project proposes locating
the front southeast corner of the Garage at 18’-0” and the south wall of the Den at 14’-9” from front property line. However, a
reduced front setback is consistent with the existing adjacent parcels, including approx. 13’-6” at 960 Rachel Ct to the west and
15’-0” to 17’-3” average setback along north neighboring parcels. The existing street and curb extends approx. 3’ to 10’ beyond
the length of the front property line. As an allowed exception per SLO Zoning 17.70.170, a reduction of the front setback would
still allow for greater than 18’-6” deep driveway measured from front of garage to back of sloping curb. See “Street Yard
Averaging Compliance” calculations, attached.
Additionally, the project proposes the removal of the existing steel pipe guardrail above the existing concrete block retaining
wall. For fall protection from the property, a new steel and glass guardrail will be installed at edge of new deck.
Packet Page 14
March 5, 2019
Street Yard Averaging Compliance / Lot 17, 974 Rachel Ct, San Luis Obispo, CA APN: 003-661-034
Application # ARCH-0049-2019, 974 Rachel Ct Residence
Per Use Permit 74-13 (907 Rachel Court), Approved on 10/18/13 Hearing, the following front building setbacks were
determined for the adjacent lots on the North side of Rachel Court. Additionally, the existing corner lot has been included.
Lot Address Front Setback Notes
From P.L.
N/A 2080 Rachel St. 6’-0” Previously existing house corner property
13N 940 Rachel Ct. 18’-6” Per Use Permit 74-13
14N 948 Rachel Ct. 18’-6” Per Use Permit 74-13
15N 954 Rachel Ct. 18’-6” Per Use Permit 74-13
16N 960 Rachel Ct. 13’-6” Per Civil Permit Set drawings & current Survey
Average w/o corner lot = 17’-3”
Average w/ corner lot = 15’-0”
17/18N 974 Rachel Ct 18’-0” at Lower Floor (West Wing), proposed
14’-9” at Main Floor (East Wing), proposed
Please contact me with any questions,
Ryan Brockett, AIA, LEED AP
Ryan Brockett Architect Inc.
ryan@brockitecture.com
Packet Page 15
805 / 801 1232
Packet Page 16
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncT1PROJECT TEAM /OWNERS:JASON SCHUTZ & KATE HEWELL1815 BAILEY DRIVEOCEANSIDE, CA 92054TEL: 530 / 400 4851EMAIL: KATE@HEWELLFINANCIAL.COMARCHITECT:RYAN BROCKETT ARCHITECT INC.755 SALINAS AVENUETEMPLETON, CA 93465TEL: 805 / 801 1232CONTACT: RYAN BROCKETT, AIA LEED APEMAIL: RYAN@BROCKITECTURE.COMCIVIL ENGINEER:ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING1413 MONTEREY STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 934201TEL: 805 / 545 0010 x119CONTACT: KEN BROWN, PEEMAIL: KEN@ASHLEYVANCE.COMLANDSCAPE DESIGNER:WILD LANDSCAPE DESIGNTEL: 760 / 680 1885CONTACT: ENRIQUE GUZMAN, ASLAEMAIL: WILDLANDSCAPEDESIGN@GMAIL.COMSURVEYOR:MBS LAND SURVEYS3559 S. HIGUERA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401TEL: 805 / 594 1960CONTACT: MIKE STANTONEMAIL: MIKE@MBSLANDSURVEYS.COMLOT 17, 974 RACHEL CT, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 003-661-034ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/05/19974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAttachment 1Packet Page 17
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncT2PROJECT INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATION /LOWER FLOOR GARAGE = 403 SFLOWER FLOOR STORAGE = 200 SFMAIN FLOOR RESIDENCE = 1150 SFMAIN FLOOR ADU STUDIO = 402 SFUPPER FLOOR RESIDENCE = 531 SFUPPER FLOOR ADU STUDIO = 92 SFTOTAL RESIDENCE = 1681 SFTOTAL ADU STUDIO = 494 SFCONDITIONED SPACE = 2,175 SFPROJECT DESCRIPTION /DESIGN PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTI-LEVEL SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE ON EXISTING VACANT R-2 LOT WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARYDWELLING UNIT LOCATED ON LOT 17 AT 974 RACHEL COURT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.PROJECT SHOWN AS A 2-BEDROOM, 2-BATHROOM APPROX. 1,680 SF RESIDENCEWITH ENCLOSED 685 SF 2-CAR GARAGE PLUS 495 SF ADU.THE SITE IS AN EXISTING PARCEL AT END OF A CUL-DE-SAC, WITH EXISTINGCONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALLS AT FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES,ALONG WITH CONCRETE STORM DRAIN CULVERT AT REAR PROPERTY LINE. THETERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE ABUTS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.VICINITY MAP /SITE INFORMATION /APN: 003-661-034ZONE: R-2LOT SIZE: 7,841 SF (0.18 AC)AVG LOT SLOPE = 19.6%, SEE SHEET A1MAX DENSITY ALLOWED: 12 DU/AC, R-2 ZONE6 DU X .18 AC = 1.08 = 2.0 MIN ALLOWEDPROPOSED: 1.5 DU (TWO BEDS PLUS STUDIO)MAX HEIGHT: 35'PROPOSED: +/- 26'-3" FROM (E) GRADEMAX LOT COVERAGE: 50%PROPOSED COVERAGE: APPROX. 24%PARKING:0.75 SPACES X 2 BEDS + 0 ADU = 1.5 SPACESPROPOSED: 2 SPACES ENCLOSED W/ DRIVEWAYBICYCLE:2 LONG TERM LOCKABLE STORAGE SPACES PROPOSEDSHEET INDEX /T1 TITLE SHEETT2 PROJECT INFORMATIONT3 CONTEXT IMAGESC-1.0 GRADING & UTILITY PLANCP CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANPP PLANTING PLAN AND IMAGESWELO LANDSCAPE WATER USE CALCSA1 OVERALL SITE PLANA2 ENLARGED SITE PLANA3 LOWER FLOOR PLANA4 MAIN FLOOR PLANA5 UPPER FLOOR PLANA6 ROOF PLANA7 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONA8 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONA9 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION & SITE SECTIONA10 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONA11 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONA12 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION & SITE SECTIONA13 COLORS AND MATERIALSA14 PRECEDENT IMAGESA15 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSA16 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSA17 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSA18 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSSHEETS FOR REFERENCE ONLYN/A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYN/A BOUNDARY SURVEYC2.0 (E) SLO TERRACE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANC5.0 (E) SLO TERRACE COMPOSITE UTILITY PLANJOHNSON AVERACHEL CTELLA STRAILRO
A
D
SANTA BARBARA AVETERRACE HILLOPEN SPACERACHEL STPROJECT SITEAttachment 1Packet Page 18
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncT3CONTEXT IMAGESVIEW FROM RACHEL CT LOOKING NORTHEASTVIEW FROM RACHEL CT LOOKING NORTHVIEW FROM RACHEL CT LOOKING NORTHWESTVIEW AT WEST PROPERTY LINE LOOKING NORTHVIEW FROM SITE LOOKING AT RETAINING WALL965 RACHEL CT NEIGHBOR TO SOUTH / ACROSS STREETVIEW FROM SITE LOOKING SOUTHEASTVIEW FROM SITE LOOKING WESTVIEW FROM SITE LOOKING SOUTHWESTPROPERTY EASTMENT TO EAST960 RACHEL CT ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO WEST954 RACHEL CT NEIGHBOR TO WESTAttachment 1Packet Page 19
WWWSSW WSD
S
G
RACHEL COURTCLPLPLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. CURB AND GUTTEREX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAININGWALLEX. BUILDINGPROP. BUILDING328.48 FFPROP. BUILDINGGUEST ROOM = 327.48 FFGARAGE = 316.98 FF(315.3 EG)316.27 FS5.9%(3.3%)(314.9 EG)(315.4 TC)(314.7 TC)(313.6 TC)(314.3 TC)EX. CONCRETE SWALEEX. CON
C
R
E
T
E
S
W
A
L
E
EX. CATCH BASINWITH SEDIMENT TRAPAND HEADWALLPLPLPL316.78 FS.7.5%315.78 FS315.50 TC315.51 FS10.00'
V.C.327.38 FS315.39 FS316.87 FS321.94 FS330.96 FS14" LIP321.95 FS330.93 FS321.87 FS327.46 FS14" LIP328.46 FS14" LIPPROP. BUILDINGSTUDIO FF = 330.98 FFSTORAGE = 321.98 FFEX. WATERMETERSEX. ELECTRIC METERTO BE RELOCATED1.5%2%19 STEPS@ 7.5"(314.5 FW)(315.9 EG)(320.8 EG)(326.7 EG)(331.9 EG)10 STEPS@ 6"14 STEPS@ 6.75"316.33 FS1.5%2%(325.3 TW)(326.6 TW)328.46 FS14" LIP328.46 FS14" LIPEX. DRIVEWAY(333.7 EG)(334.0 EG)(333.4 EG)330.6 FG330.7 FG330.8 FG(316.0 TG)EX. DIPROP. STEPPED RET. WALLEX. CONCRETE SWALEEX. CONCRETE SWALE330.4 FG2:12:12:1PROP. WALLSTORM DRAIN EASEMENT331.2 FG2%2 STEPS@ 6"328.33 FS2 STEPS @ 6"328.40 FS328.33 FS2 STEPS@ 6"326.40 FS326.33 FS326.30 FS2%331.2 FG331.2 FG331.2 FG328.3 FG328.0 FG(333.0 EG)(332.0 EG)2:1WALL EASEMENT TO CITYP.U.E.10' STREET TREE EASEMENTAC-1.0AC-1.0330.71FS315.51 FS315.47 FSPROP. SWALE330.9 FG315.50 TC314.5 FG315.50 TC315.0 FG320.00 TW325.00 TW333.00 TW332.00 TW316.75 FS332.00 TW319.50 TW323.50 TW327.40 FS329.83 FS330.39 FS(320.6 TW)4.5%316.00 FS315.39 FS3103203303403103203303401+001+50 1+65EX. SURFACE328.48 FFPROPOSEDBUILDING2:1EX. CONCRETE SWALEEX. RETAINING WALLSPROP. PERMEABLEWALK328.33 FS326.30 FS326.40 FSPROP. DECK331.2 FG333.3 FG330.3 FGRACHEL COURT CUL-DE-SAC(320.6 TW)Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181443 - Hewell Residence (Civil) - RBA\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\GRADING SHEET.dwg, C-1.0, Mar 06, 2019 4:00pm, JuanPhone Ext.:Phone Ext.:Engineer of Record:Plan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A LEENI C 78390TS CTAEFOIGERAIOFILACLIVNRRERPSDERETFONOILAGNEISSKENNETH B. BROW N PLAN REVIEW SETNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSheet Size:24 x 36HEWELL RESIDENCE974 RACHEL CTSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401JMAKBB03.06.2019181443GRADING ANDUTILITY PLANC-1.01----2----3----4----5----156119NSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:PROPOSED UPWARD CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.PROPOSED PERMEABLE FLATWORK.PROPOSED 4' MAX RETAINING WALL.PROPOSED DECK.PROPOSED RETAINING CURB.DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER STUB.SEWER LATERAL. CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER STUB.12345W1SS1010 10 20HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' 3-PRELIMINARY PLANS-PL13224ASITE PROFILESCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL1" = 5' VERTICALW1SS1EX. FH5335223Attachment 1Packet Page 20
(N) BUBBLING WATER FEATURE(N) DOG TURF AREA(N) REDWOOD GATE(N) PLANTING AREA(N) DRY-STACK WALL(N) LOW-MAINTENANCE PLANTS,SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR TYPE(N) PATIO AREA BRICK PAVING,45 DEGREE HERRINGBONE(N) PATIO AREA BRICK PAVING, 45 DEGREE HERRINGBONE(N) LOW-MAINTENANCE PLANTS,SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR TYPE(N) RETAINING WALL(N) PATIO AREA BRICK PAVING,45 DEGREE HERRINGBONE(N) LOW-MAINTENANCE PLANTS,SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR TYPE(N) STAIRCASE WITH BRICK TILE(N) GUARD AND HAND RAIL(N) PATIO AREA BRICK PAVING, 45 DEGREE HERRINGBONE(N) REDWOOD DECKWITH GUARD RAIL(E) METERS(N) ACCENT POT, TYP.(E) EXISTING WOOD BOARDFENCE TO REMAIN,MODIFY HEIGHT AS NEEDED,6'-0" MAXIMUM ABOVEADJACENT GRADE(N) SEE THROUGH FENCE INSIDEOF SWALE, SEE DRAWING 1(E) PROPERTY LINE(N) TRASH ENCLOSURE(N) SEE-THROUGH FENCE,SEE DRAWING 14"X4" P.T. WOOD POST2"X6" REDWOOD BEAM2"X4" REDWOOD BEAM4 GAUGE GALVANIZEDWELDED WIRE TYP.6'6"6" TYP.THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS A PRELIMINARY DESIGN.THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ABSTRACT IMAGERY INGRAPHIC FORM TO CONVEY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN.IN NO WAY ARE THESE DRAWINGS TO BE USED FORSITE IMPLEMENTATION OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.1SCALE: 1/2" = 1'- 0"HOG WIRE FENCE5%#.' Á' 5*''66+6.' 5*''607/$'4 *'9'..4'5+&'0%'%10%'267#.2.#0%24#%*'.%65#0.7+51$+521%##&&4'55 %.+'06 9+.&.#0&5%#2'&'5+)0AACDEGHIFBSITE ACCENTS:BRICK TILE AT STEPSTHIS DRAWING REPRESENTS A PRELIMINARY DESIGN.THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ABSTRACT IMAGERY INGRAPHIC FORM TO CONVEY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN.IN NO WAY ARE THESE DRAWINGS TO BE USED FORSITE IMPLEMENTATION OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.OLIVE TREESLOPE LANDSCAPE ARTIFICIAL TURF HOG WIRE FENCEGUARD RAIL WOOD DECKBRICK PADS DRY-STACK WALLSDEFGEDABCCBHIGHAACDEGFBSITE ACCENTS:BRICK TILE AT STEPSOLIVE TREESLOPE LANDSCAPE ARTIFICIAL TURF HOG WIRE FENCEGUARD RAIL WOOD DECKBRICK PADS DRY-STACK WALLSDEFGEDABCCBHIGHAttachment 1Packet Page 21
PLANT LIST:SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QUANTITY Calamagrotis 'Karl Foerster' 5g 12 Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' 5g 19 Senecio mandraliscae 'Blue Chalk Fingers' 1g 20 Agave desmettiana 'Variegata' 5g 7 Olea europaea 'Majestic Beauty' 24" box 2 Miscanthus sinensis 'Morning Light' 5g 7 Rosmarinus 'Huntington Carpet' 5g 4 Lavandula stoechas 'Otto Quast' 5g 9 Agave 'Blue Glow' 5g 2 Calandrina spectabilis 1g 9 Agave attenuata 'Ray of Light' 5g 2 Leucospermum 'Veldfire' 1g 3 Rosa x 'Iceberg' 5g 8 Echeveria 'After Glow' 1g 3 Olea 'Little Ollie' 15g 8LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO FINE GRADE ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS2. ALL STEEL EDGING TO BE RYERSON STEEL EDGING TO CLEARLY DEFINEEND OF GROUNDCOVER BEDS; ALONG WITH SHRUB BEDS.3. EXISTING TREES, LIGHTS AND OTHER UTILITIES TO BE VERIFIED ON SITEBY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4. 3" MULCH BED FOR ALL PLANTING BEDS.5. PLANTING SOIL MIX TO CONTAIN: 40% TOP SOIL, 30% SHREDDED BARK AND 30% SAND.6. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR ALL PLANTING QUANTITIES.7. ALL GRAVEL AREAS TO BE MINIMUM 3" DEEP, WITH BASE MATERIAL COMPACTED AND GRADED TODRAIN AWAY FROM HOME.8. GUYING AND STAKING, TREE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND PRUNINGTO BE DONE PER CITY GUIDELINES.9. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING THE SITE AND PROVIDING POSITIVE DRAINAGEAWAY FROM BUILDINGS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE STREET.10. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EXACT PLANT VARIETIES AND CONSULT WITH OWNER OR OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE IF SUBSTITUTIONS ARE REQUIRED.11. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE TO BE PROVIDED PER AS-BUILT GRADES ALLOWING FOR SUFFICIENTDRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY, THROUGH AREA DRAINS, FRENCH DRAINS AND SLOPES.12. CASITA TO BE DESIGNED AND CONSULTED BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR BUILDER.BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHOWN AS ABSTRACT IMAGERY TO CONVEY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION.13. PLANT DIAMETER SIZE SHOWN IS OF FULLY MATURE PLANT, SPACE ASSHOWN ON PLAN.14. ALL PLANTER AREAS SHALL RECEIVE DRIP IRRIGATION, EMITTERS SHALL BE SELF CLEANING ANDPRESSURE COMPENSATING.15. ALL PLANTS TO BE AMENDED WITH 5050 MIX EACH PLANT HOLE.PLANTINGAREAAttachment 1Packet Page 22
Maximum Applied Water Allowance Calculations for New and Rehabilitated LandscapesEnter value in Pale Blue CellsTan Cells Show ResultsMessages and WarningsClick on the blue cell on right to Pick City NameETo of City from Appendix AEnter total landscape including SLASan Luis Obispo Name of City43.80 ETo (inches/year)2,046.00 LA (ft2)Enter Special Landscape Area0.00 SLA (ft2)Results:MAWA = (ETo) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]30,563.15 Gallons4,085.71 Cubic Feet40.86 HCF0.09 Acre-feet0.03 Millions of GallonsMAWA calculation incorporating Effective Precipitation (Optional)ETo of City from Appendix ALandscape AreaSpecial Landscape AreaEnter Effective PrecipitationResults:MAWA=(ETo - Eppt) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]43.80 ETo (inches/year)2,046.00 LA (ft2)0.00 SLA (ft2)0.00 Total annual precipitation0.00 Eppt (in/yr)(25% of total annual precipitation)- Gallons- Cubic Feet- HCF- Acre-feet- Millions of GallonsEstimated Total Water UseEquation:ETWU = (ETo) x (0.62) x [(PF x HA/IE) + SLA]Enter values in Pale Blue CellsTan Cells Show ResultsMessages and WarningsEnter Irrigation Efficiency (equal to or greater than 0.71)Irrigation Efficiency Default ValuePlant Water Use TypeLowMediumHighSLAHydrozone123Plant WaterUse Type (s)(low, medium,high)LowLowLow0.910.71Plant Factor0 - 0.30.4 - 0.60.7 - 1.01.00Plant Factor(PF)0.200.200.20HydrozoneArea (HA)(ft2) PF x HA (ft2)2188281,0004416620000000000000409SLA 10 0Sum 2,046ResultsMAWA = 30,563ETWU= 12,213 Gallons1,633 Cubic Feet16 HCF0.04 Acre-feet0.01 Millions of GallonsETWU complies with MAWAAttachment 1Packet Page 23
R A C H E L C O U R TTERRACE HILLOPEN SPACEC/OS-40PROPOSEDRESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034EXISTINGRESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-030330'335'325'315'320'325'330'(E) FIRE HYRANT
APPROX. 75' FROM PL(E) FIRE HYDRANTAPPROX. 50' FROM PL(E) FIRE HYDRANTAPPROX. 300' FROM PLLOTS 17 & 18974 RACHEL CTLOT 16960 RACHEL CT(E) STORM &SEWER UTILITIESRELOCATE (E)ELEC METER(E) WATER METERS(E) CONC. STORMINTERCEPTER(E) CONC. SWALE8'-0"14'-9"18'-0"18'-0"21'-4" O.C. TO BACK OF CURB CUT14'-8"13'-9"+/- 13'-6"101'-1"314' ELEV333.8' ELEVCROSS SLOPE CALCULATION:333.8' - 314.0' (SW CORNER) = 19.8'19.8' / 101.08' = 19.6 %/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc01684232A1OVERALL SITE PLANSCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 24
PROPOSEDRESIDENCEEXISTINGRESIDENCE(E) CONC DRAINAGE SWALE6' PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT10' STREET TREEEASEMENT(E) RETAINING WALLW/ FENCE ABOVE(E) RETAINING WALL(E) RETAINING WALLSTORM DRAINEASEMENTPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECONC.DRIVEWAYPROPERTY LINETRASHBINSPAVEDPATIORAISED WOOD DECKW/ RAILINGFF 325.37' MAINFF 315.37' GARAGEFF 338.81 UPPERFF 330.98 ADUFF 327.48-328.48 MAINFF 316.98 GARAGEMODIFY (E) APRON(N) STEPS &RET. WALL(N) LOWRETAINING WALLPAVEDPATIO(N) STEPS &RET. WALLCONC. PADTERRACE HILLOPEN SPACE(N) GATEMAX 6'-0 H(N) RETAINING WALLAT BASE OF HOUSE(N) TREE(N) TREE(N) WIRE FENCE/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A2ENLARGED SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 25
STORAGE20'-1" X 10'-0"2-CARGARAGE20-'1" X 20'-1"DRIVEWAY21'-5"31'-6"BUILDING OUTLINESHOWN DASHED ABOVE316.98 FF321.98 FFUPUPUPEXISTINGRESIDENCEFF 315.37' GARAGE(2) LONG TERM BIKEPARKING SPACES/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A3LOWER FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 26
320'325'330'315'325'330'33ADUSTUDIO20'-6" x 13'-0"CLBATHGUESTBEDROOM15'-2" x 9'-1"W/DBATHPATIOENTRYKITCHEN10'-6" x 20'-0"DINING / LIVING19'-6" X 16'-0"DEN11'-0" X 12'-6"STORDWFPPANTRYRDW21'-5"37'-2"15'-412"19'-6"14'-10"6'-512"13'-512"3'-1112"3'-0"RAISED DECKW/ GUARD RAIL320'325'330'315'325'330'33CLCLDNUPDNUPDN327.48 FF330.98 FF328.48 FFUPDNDNEXISTINGRESIDENCEFF 325.37' MAINPATIO/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A4MAIN FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 27
SLEEPINGLOFT10'-0" X 7'-6"STORAGEOPENTOBELOWMASTERSUITE15'-8" X 16'-0"MASTERBATHCLCLWDDN339.98 FFDN338.81 FFWC/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A5UPPER FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 28
SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE3:125:12 5:125:12 5:125:125:125:125:125:12AWNING ATEXT. DOORSAWNING ATEXT. DOORSPATIO W/ GARAGE BELOW/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A6ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 29
LOWER FLOOR GARAGE316.98 FF (0'-0"MAIN FLOOR GUEST BED327.48 FFT.O. ROOFT.O. ROOF10'-6"16'-0"8'-0"SETBACK TO PL7'-6"VERTICAL BOARD & BATTENFIBER CEMENT SIDINGSTANDING SEAM METALROOFINGSTEEL CHIMNEY CAPHORIZONTAL PLANK FIBERCEMENT SIDINGMETAL CLAD WOODWINDOWS & DOORS, TYPMETAL & GLASS GUARDRAILWOOD DECK & STEPSSTEEL AWNINGSTEEL GUARD TOP RAILBRICK STEPSMETAL GARAGE DOORBOARD FORMED CONCRETESTEEL CLADDING AT ENTRYWOOD GATE(E) CMU RETAINING WALL/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A7LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM RACHEL COURTSOUTH FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 30
MAIN FLOOR DEN328.48 FFT.O. ROOFT.O. ROOFUPPER FLOOR MASTER SUITE10'-4" (338.81)10'-4"13'-9"10'-11"/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A8LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM RACHEL COURTSOUTH FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 31
MAIN FLOOR DINING/LIVING328.48 FFT.O. ROOFT.O. ROOFUPPER FLOOR MASTER SUITE338.81 FF10'-4"13'-9"10'-11"35' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE (E) GRADETAKEN AT EAST EDGE OF BUILDING/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A9EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION & SITE SECTIONSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 32
MAIN FLOOR ADU STUDIO330.98 FFT.O. ROOFUPPER FLOOR MASTER SUITE339.98 FF9'-0"21'-0"LOWER FLOOR STORAGE321.98 FF9'-0"/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A10LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACENORTH REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 33
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A11LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACENORTH REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 34
LOWER FLOOR GARAGE316.98 FF (0'-0")T.O. ROOF9'-0"9'-0"LOWER FLOOR STORAGE321.98 FFMAIN FLOOR ADU STUDIO330.98 FFUPPER FLOOR SLEEPING LOFT339.985'-0"19'-11"18'-11" HT.15'-8" HT.12'-10"35' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE (E) GRADETAKEN AT WEST EDGE OF BUILDING+/- 26'-3" HT/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect Inc0842116A12WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION & SITE SECTIONSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Attachment 1Packet Page 35
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncA13COLORS AND MATERIALSNOT TO SCALELIGHT GREY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGHORIZONTAL PLANK FIBER CEMENT SIDINGBOARD FORMED CONCRETE WALLVERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN FIBER CEMENT SIDINGREDWOOD DECKING; NATURAL CLEAR STAINBRICK PAVERS; HERRINGBONE PATTERNSMOOTH CONC RETAINING WALLSSTEEL & GLASS RAILINGSLARGE DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE; NIGHT SKY COMPLIANTSMALL DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE; NIGHT SKY COMPLIANTSW 7005 PURE WHITETRIM & EAVESSW 7008 ALABASTERMAIN SIDINGSW 7069 IRON OREENTRY DOOR SURROUNDQUIKCRETE CEMENT MIX - CHARCOALAT BOARD FORMED CONCRETEAttachment 1Packet Page 36
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncA14PRECEDENT IMAGESSHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLYAttachment 1Packet Page 37
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncA15PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSVIEW FROM RACHEL COURTAttachment 1Packet Page 38
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncA16PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSVIEW FROM RACHEL COURT & EXISTING RETAINING WALLAttachment 1Packet Page 39
Attachment 1Packet Page 40
/974 RACHEL CT RESIDENCEAPN: 003-661-034 / SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARC REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 03.05.19Ryan Brockett Architect IncA18PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSVIEW FROM FRONT DECK LOOKING AT ENTRY DOORAttachment 1Packet Page 41
Attachment 1Packet Page 42
Attachment 1Packet Page 43
Attachment 1Packet Page 44
Attachment 1Packet Page 45
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of plans for 17 single-family residences on vacant property with adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT ADDRESS: 907 Rachel Court BY: Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 74-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant MI SLO TERRACE
Representative Sean Stinnett, Coastal Community
Builders
Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential,
Special Considerations)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 2.33 Acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption (ER 74-
13)
SUMMARY
The project includes development of relatively vacant property with 17 new single-family
residences on 17 existing parcels. Staff finds the proposed placement and design of the residences to
be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines but is looking to the ARC to provide feedback
on the following; 1) cul-de-sac retaining wall height exceeding six feet [see section 4.1 below] and
the downhill (south façade) wall height exceeding 15-feet for lots 2, 4, 7, and 8 [see section 4.2
below]. Additionally, staff has prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined mitigation
measures were needed for geology and soils. Staff has incorporated mitigation measures into the
project and is recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Meeting Date: Dec. 16, 2013
Item Number: 2
Attachment 2
Packet Page 46
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 2
1.0 USE PERMIT APPROVAL
The proposed project required approval of an Administrative Use Permit due to the Special
Considerations Overlay placed on the property. The Special Considerations overlay was established
at the subject location due to concerns with noise generated from the railroad, and due to the hillside
location. Additionally, the Use Permit review included setback exception requests (side and street
yard) and a determination of code consistency for the proposed Secondary Dwelling Units for seven
of the new residences.
On October 17, 2013, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Administrative Use Permit A
74-13 (Attachment 3) allowing construction of 17 new single-family residences with optional
Secondary Dwelling Units on lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 14N, 15N, and 16N, a street yard setback exception
on lots 13N though 15N, and a one-foot side yard setback exception.
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City standards.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The overall project site consists of 2.33 acres of ruderal vacant land (primarily non-native
annual grassland) zoned R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) & R-2-S (Medium-Density
Residential Special Considerations Overlay). The project site contains two dilapidated single-
family residences which are currently vacant. The westernmost single-family residence is a
Contributing List Historic Resource while the easternmost single-family residence will be
demolished (not listed as a historic resource). The project site is surrounded by R-2 zoning to
the north, west, and south with R-1-PD (Planned Development) zoning to the east (the Leland
Terrace Condominium properties). Southwest of the project site are three properties recently
developed with three single-family residences, two of which have integral/attached secondary
dwelling units. Significant features surrounding the property include Terrace Hill (directly north
of the project site) and a section of the Union Pacific Railroad (west of the project site).
The existing 17 parcels proposed for development are approximately 40 feet wide by 120 feet
deep and range in cross slope between 10% and 23% (average cross slope for the project site is
19%).
Site Size 2.33 Acres
Present Use & Development Primarily Vacant with 2 SFR’s
Topography 19% Average Cross Slope
Access Rachel Court, Florence Avenue
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Residences (R-2 zoning) and Terrace Hill
Attachment 2
Packet Page 47
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 3
South: Residences (R-2 zoning)
East: Leland Terrace Residences (R-1-PD)
West: Vacant Land (R-2 zoning) and Union Pacific Railroad
3.2 Project Description
Significant project features include the following (Attachment 5, Project Plans):
1. Construction of 17 detached single-family residences (1,177 to 1,700 square feet) on
existing parcels. The residence types are as follows:
a. Nine 3-bedroom residences (Lots 2-7 & 12-14)
b. Seven 2-bedroom residences with optional integral/attached secondary dwelling
units (Lots 8-11 & 14N-16N)
c. One 2-bedroom affordable income residence (Lot 13N)
2. Complete road improvements along Florence Avenue and Rachel Court
3. A pedestrian easement for a foot trail connection to the Terrace Hill Open Space is
proposed to be placed behind the cul-de-sac retaining wall (Attachment 5c: Grading
Plan, Sheet C3.0)
a. Preliminary review by the City’s Natural Resources Manager indicates placement
of a trail in this location is feasible. The specific placement of the trail will need
to be approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission prior to building permit
issuance (condition #39). An approximate trail placement exhibit will be
provided at the ARC hearing.
3.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback (Lots 2-14) 20 feet 20 feet
Street Yard Setback (Lots 13N-16N) 18.5 feet3 20 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) ~22 feet 35 feet
Coverage (buildings & paving) <50% 50%
Parking Spaces 2 or 3 2 or 3 (1 additional for SDU’s)
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 7/15/2013
2. City Zoning Regulations
3. Approved by Administrative Hearing Officer (Attachment 3, Use Permit A 74-13)
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
4.1 Site Plan: The proposed 17 homes will be placed on existing parcels approximately 40-feet
wide by 120-feet deep on a site with an average cross slope of 19%. The existing Rachel Court
roadway will be extended eastward ending in a cul-de-sac and the majority of the proposed
residences (12) will take access from the newly constructed Rachel Court. Consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG), the proposed homes are located as close as possible to
Attachment 2
Packet Page 48
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 4
the adjacent streets1 and the homes are placed in the least visually prominent location in an
effort to limit the amount of grading2 needed on the project site (Attachment 5b: Grading Area
Calculations & Attachment 5c: Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0). Also, the proposed layout of
buildings on the site is designed to limit the use/height of retaining walls3 to below six feet, and
leaves the majority (~73%) of the site’s topography in its natural state (Attachment 5b: Grading
Area Calculations & Attachment 5c: Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0 Section A-A).
As stated above, Rachel Court will be extended eastward ending in a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac
to allow for fire truck access and turnaround. The end of the proposed cul-de-sac will be placed
in one of the steeper portions of the site requiring retention of soil at this location. The applicant
proposes a tiered retaining wall system at this location with plantings between the walls. The
lower retaining wall will have a maximum height of 4-feet and the upper retaining wall will
have a maximum height of 7.5-feet (Attachment 5c Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0 Section C-C). The
applicant proposes the tiered retaining wall system as an alternative to a single retaining wall at
the end of the cul-de-sac which would be at a height of 9.5-feet. Staff supports the tiered
retaining wall proposal although a section of the upper retaining wall exceeds the 6-foot height
standard of the CDG2. Staff is looking to the ARC to provide feedback on the preferred cul-de-
sac retaining wall design; single wall, two-tier, or possibly three-tiered walls.
4.2 Building Design: The applicant proposes five unit types (1A, 1C, 1D, 2, and 2A) with each
unit type incorporating either Craftsman or Farmhouse architecture (Attachment 5a,
Architectural Plans, Page 4). Additionally, each architectural style (Craftsman and Farmhouse)
includes three potential color schemes (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Pages 16, 20, 25 &
27). Each home will be two levels and is designed to step up or down the hillside depending on
the location.
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.3a: Hillside Development. Each proposed structure shall be located so
that it is as close as possible to the street, to avoid the need for a long driveway.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.e: Minimize grading on individual lots; generally locate houses close to
the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.5: Retaining Walls. No visible portion of a retaining wall should be
higher than six feet, and a maximum height of three feet is preferred. Where a retaining wall would otherwise exceed
six feet in height, the wall shall be divided into terraces with variations in plane and include landscaping to break up
the length of walls and to screen them from view.
Rachel Court (Looking North)
Attachment 2
Packet Page 49
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 5
Figure 2
The designs incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation and each home style includes
material change between stucco, horizontal siding, vertical siding, and composite roofing. The
largest wall planes occur in the side yard areas between residences (east and west elevations).
The designs incorporate wall plane offset and material change in this area to provide some
articulation and staff finds the use of articulation consistent with the CDG Hillside Development
standards4, especially given the design constraints of the narrow (40-foot wide) lots and the
sloping hillside.
As discussed above, the homes are designed to step up or down the
hillside depending on the location. Lots 13N through 16N and lots
10 through 14 step up the hillside and will appear single-story when
viewed from the rear (north) elevation; figure 1 at right (e.g. see
Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Pages 21 & 22, north
elevation). However, lots 2 through 9 step down the hillside and
will appear as single-story when viewed from the rear (south)
elevation, figure 2 at right (e.g. see Attachment 5a, Architectural
Plans, Pages 25-28, south elevation). CDG Hillside Development
standards state “no single building wall on the downhill side of a
house should exceed 15 feet in height above grade.” The homes
proposed for lots 8 and 9 will comply with this standard if the
homeowner chooses the secondary dwelling unit option (e.g. see
Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page 26, unit 2-south
elevation) and the Craftsman design proposed for lots 3, 5, and 6
will comply with this standard due to the added articulation from
the Dutch-gable roof style. However, the Farmhouse style homes
(lots 2, 4, and 7) include a gable roof which creates a south façade wall height of 25 feet, see
figure 2 (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page 26, unit 2A south elevation).
The applicant has added some articulation to the south elevation by incorporating a second floor
deck and ultimately the south view of these four residences will be obscured by homes on the
4 Community Design Guidelines 7.2.B.2a: Exterior Wall Surfaces. Large flat building planes should be avoided; the
spatial arrangement of the building, including roof overhands, should be used to achieve alternating light and dark
building surfaces that will blend with similar contrasts found in the surrounding natural vegetation.
Figure 1
Rachel Court (Looking South)
Attachment 2
Packet Page 50
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 6
lots to the south. Staff finds the proposed design to be acceptable because the added articulation
(recommended by the CDG) would likely lead to a larger footprint needing more site grading,
and the taller wall height will only potentially occur on four of the proposed homes (lots 2, 4, 7,
and lot 8 if the owner does not choose the secondary dwelling unit option).
4.3 Neighborhood Consistency
Consistent with the CDG, the proposed Farmhouse and Craftsman style homes are designed to
be compatible with the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the
neighborhood5 which include mainly Craftsman style homes with highlighted entries facing the
street, low-sloped roofs, stucco, and horizontal siding (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page
3). Also similar to neighboring residences, the designs incorporate highlighted entries 6 to each
residence and homes on lots 1 through 9 will incorporate an entry trellis (Attachment 5a,
Architectural Plans, Pages 5 & 6).
The proposed residences are compatible with the scale and overall character7 of residences in
the neighborhood by keeping a low profile and conforming to the hillside location, in an effort
to maintain views for neighboring residences. The applicant proposes a maximum height from
average ground level below each structure of approximately 22 feet, while the maximum height
allowance for residences in the R-2 zone is 35 feet.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined mitigation measures were needed
for geology and soils (Attachment 6, Initial Study). The subject location is in an area designated as
having moderate landslide potential according to the General Plan Safety Element, and the applicant
has provided a Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Investigation Report prepared by
GeoSolutions, Inc.
The Soils Engineering Report (Attachment E within Initial Study Attachment 6) identifies the
following primary geotechnical concerns; 1) the presence of loose, soft surface soils, 2) the
potential for excess sub-surface moisture to affect the proposed improvements, 3) the presence of
expansive soil materials, and 4) the potential for differential settlement occurring between
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 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.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3.A2: Infill residential structures should 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.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3.A1: Infill residential structures 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 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.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 51
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 7
foundations supported on two soil materials having different settlement characteristics (e.g. native
soil and engineered fill). The report concludes that the site is geologically and geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development provided recommendations presented in the report are
incorporated into building plans and specifications for development of the site. The
recommendations include preparation of building pads, preparation of paved areas, pavement
design, foundation design, and retaining walls.
The Engineering Geology Investigation Report (Attachment H within the Initial Study Attachment
6) confirmed the conclusions of the Soils Engineering Report finding no landslide hazard, low
liquefaction hazard, and low potential for ground rupture during ground shaking. The report
concludes that the site is geologically suitable for the proposed development provided
recommendations presented in the report are implemented. The recommendations include review of
specific site development from the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer including excavation
and grading and recommendations for foundation placement/design, surface drainage, and slope
design.
Mitigations measures included in the attached Initial Study require the applicant to incorporate all
recommendations included in the Soil Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Investigation
Report into the project.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as
conditions of approval/code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Administrative Use Permit A 74-13
4. Project Description
5. Project Plans
a. Architectural Plan
b. Grading Area Calculations
c. Grading/Drainage Plan
6. Initial Study and Attachments
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
Attachment 2
Packet Page 52
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1017-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF 17
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (ER 74-13) AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 16, 2013,
907 RACHEL COURT (R-2-S ZONE; ARC 74-13)
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on October 17, 2013, and approved application A 74-13 allowing placement
of 17 new single-family residences on a site with special considerations and including approval
of setback exception requests and a determination of code consistency for Secondary Dwelling
Units for seven of the proposed residences, and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC 74-
13, MI SLO TERRACE, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and considered the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project as prepared by staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 74-13), based on the following findings:
1. 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 Medium
Density Residential zoning designation and will be subject to conformance with all
applicable building, fire, and safety codes.
2. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed residences are sited to minimize the extent of grading and step down the hillside.
3. As conditioned, the project is compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character
with buildings in the adjacent neighborhood, consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 53
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 2
4. As conditioned, the project’s design is consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines by incorporating articulation and a mix of finish materials that create shade and
shadowing.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 74-13) of Environmental Impact
finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation
of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs:
1. Building plans and specifications for site development shall incorporate all
recommendations included in the Soil Engineering Report (July 13, 2013) and
Engineering Geology Investigation Report (November 8, 2013) prepared for the project
by GeoSolutions, Inc., subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official and City
Engineer.
• Monitoring Program: Building permits are required for all proposed grading activities
and construction of common improvements on-site. These building permits will be
evaluated for compliance with the recommendations of the soils report.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Department
1. The project shall comply with conditions of approval established by Administrative Use
Permit A 74-13.
2. The project shall obtain all requisite permits from the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) as identified in the APCD Letter dated October 7, 2013,
and attached to Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 74-13 (Attachment 6).
3. Pursuant to certificate of compliance CC 6-13, lots 17N (003-661-031) and 18N (003-661-
032) are nonconforming due to substandard lot area and/or dimensions and may be
developed only after they have been merged, lot lines have been adjusted, or otherwise re-
subdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming
parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms to the standards of the City’s
Subdivision Regulations.
a. Lots 17N and 18N shall be designated as “sensitive sites” requiring approval by the
Architectural Review Commission of plans for future site development. This status
ensures future site development will respect existing site constraints, privacy of
occupants and neighbors of the project, and be compatible with the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
4. 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 lists 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
Attachment 2
Packet Page 54
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 3
design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval, must be approved by
the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
5. Finish material details for exposed retaining walls shall return to staff for review and
approval, either prior to, or along with, plans submitted for a building permit. All exposed
retaining walls, including the cul-de-sac retaining walls shall be finished with colors and
materials consistent with the guidelines for exterior structure colors (e.g. muted earth tones)
and materials (e.g. natural/natural-appearing materials) provided in Community Design
Guidelines Chapter 7.2.B4.
6. 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. The
proposed “Pure White” color shall be replaced with a muted white color (consistent with
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.B4), to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. For the Farmhouse-style homes on Lots 2, 4, and 7, there shall be a
materials change as presented at the meeting with board and batten siding on the upper
portion of the wall and stucco below.
7. Exterior materials (e.g. stucco and siding) shall continue down to within no less than one
foot of adjacent finished grade.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include final design details (including material,
color, and dimensions) for the proposed trellis structures located at building entries for lots
2 through 9. The proposed trellis structures shall meet the minimum setback standards
established in Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16.
9. 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.
10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall offset windows between adjacent residences in
side yard areas to provide privacy for the residents of both structures, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
11. For lots 13N through 18N, the use of solid, opaque fencing shall be limited to the side
yards between living areas (i.e. residences and backyard areas adjacent to residences) on
adjacent lots, with semi-transparent fencing (e.g. black or green vinyl-coated chain link,
wrought iron, split rail, or four-inch square welded wire) combined with landscaping, or
landscaping alone, in the remaining side yard areas, to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Commission.
12. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall not be located within the front yard areas
and shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way, consistent with Zoning
Regulations section 17.17.075 (Neighborhood Preservation).
Attachment 2
Packet Page 55
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 4
13. Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, or
along with, the plans submitted for a building permit. The locations of all lighting fixtures
shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings.
The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the
proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of
the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light
is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Details
of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of
plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior wall-mounted lights may
be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development
Director determines that they emit excessive glare.”
a. The proposed exterior light fixture shown on plans for Craftsman-style homes does not
appear to comply with Night Sky Preservation standards, and plans submitted for a
building permit shall include a compliant lighting fixture.
14. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a final landscaping plan for the project
site, including irrigation details. 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. Street trees species shall comply
with City standards.
15. 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.
Public Works – Engineering
16. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance.
17. Complete public improvements will be required as a condition of development. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect at
the time of plan submittal or encroachment permit issuance. New standards such as LED
street lighting and sewer main materials will be formally endorsed with the proposed City
Engineering Standards. These and other established standards will be required for this
development regardless of timing of the project approvals and official City Council action
to adopt the standards.
18. It is recognized that post-construction water quality treatment required for this project may
require that alternate paving materials be considered within the public right-of-way. The
City will consider, and could accept for public maintenance, porous paving materials, sub-
drains, storm drain extensions, etc., as they relate to water quality treatment of runoff from
the public street.
19. The required public improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City prior to
building permit issuance. A separate public improvement plan submittal shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department for coordination of the review and approval. The
submittal shall include the engineer of record estimate of probable costs or cost summary
Attachment 2
Packet Page 56
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 5
from construction contracts. An improvement plan review and inspection fee will be
required in accordance with the fee resolution in effect at the time of the plan submittal.
The improvement plans should be included in the on-site plans for reference. Record
drawings will be required at the completion of construction per City Engineering
Standards.
20. All required dedications, public and private easements, public pedestrian easements, open
space dedications, maintenance agreements, etc., shall be recorded prior to building permit
issuance and approval of the public improvement construction as necessary. Any deferral
of submittal documents and/or deferred timing to record documents shall be approved by
the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. If deferred, said items
shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals and occupancy.
21. The developer shall dedicate a six-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) and a ten-foot
wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent
to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. Additional PUE’s
may be required to the satisfaction of the supplying utility companies. The public
improvement plans shall be signed by each of the respective utility companies.
22. A separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against Lot 9 and 18N for the
proposed private improvements located within the former cul-de-sac offer of dedication.
Separate agreements or a common agreement shall be recorded against Lots 13N – 18N for
the grading and drainage features proposed for location within the public right-of-way.
23. The developer shall install street lighting and all associated facilities including but not
limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires per City Engineering
Standards. The current standard under development for LED lighting is required within
this subdivision. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be
required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the
necessary public improvements.
24. Existing overhead wiring shall be undergrounded along the development frontages in
conjunction with the public improvements. The required undergrounding shall be achieved
without a net increase in joint utility poles within the public right-of-way. The proposed
undergrounding details and requirements shall be approved by the City and serving wire
utility companies. Wiring to all new dwellings and structures shall be underground.
25. City records indicate that conduits were installed in conjunction with the improvements for
neighboring development at 2196 and 2198 Rachel Street. The project shall include
undergrounding from Rachel Court across Lot 1 to the existing infrastructure to the
satisfaction of the City and serving utility companies. The existing wood pole and
streetlight #513 may remain if the pole can accommodate an underground service feed.
26. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer, storm drains, and
appurtenances shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Utilities
Department, and Fire Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service
laterals, meters, and hydrants shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the
building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 57
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 6
27. The public improvement plans shall include a final water service layout to the satisfaction
of the Utilities and Public Works Departments. Meter manifolds per City Engineering
Standard #6260 should be considered for all pairs of lots to reduce the total number of
services. The service points should be staggered between the northerly and southerly lots.
The first southerly service should include a manifold for Lots 1 & 2 to avoid the conflict.
The existing old service for Lot 1 should be abandoned accordingly.
28. A water meter may be required to serve Lot 18N. The final plans shall clarify how the
retaining wall landscape irrigation will be serviced. The service for the cul-de-sac lots
should not be sleeved under or though the wall foundations. The pla ns shall show a
terminal end fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac rather than a blow-off. The final hydrant
location shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Utilities
Department.
29. The building plan submittal and public improvement plans shall clarify that a gravity sewer
connection is achievable for Lots 2 – 9. The plans shall show and note which lots will
require a sewer backwater valve.
30. The existing sewer lateral for Lot 1 is reportedly connected to a common lateral together
with the two existing Callaway residences to the north and known as 2080 and 2098 Rachel
Street. The public improvement plans shall show and note the location and disposition of
all existing sewer connections to the satisfaction of the City.
31. The City may consider and potentially support the extension of the public water main into
the adjoining subdivision (Tract 1034-2) at Pauline Way.
32. The building plans and public improvement plans shall consider the required separations
between several utility improvements located along the frontage of the lots. The separation
and construction of utility vaults, water meters/services, and sidewalk underdrains will
need to consider any additional clearances required from the driveway approach transitions.
33. The proposed tiered retaining wall and landscape planting shall be owned and maintained
by the adjoining Lots 9, 17N, and 18N or by a property owner’s association. The required
landscaping will require a water meter to service the landscape irrigation system.
Easements may be required to cover the irrigation system improvements crossing multiple
properties.
34. The building plan submittal and public improvement plans shall show and note compliance
with the parking and driveway standards for upsloping and downsloping driveways. The
plans shall show the required vertical curves and associated spot elevations on both sides of
the driveway for reference.
35. Parking shall be removed from the north side of Rachel Court and around the entire cul-de-
sac. The final cul-de-sac diameter may be reduced in accordance with the latest adoption
of the California Fire Code to minimize wall heights and grading to the satisfaction of the
Fire Marshal.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 58
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 7
36. The proposed driveway approach serving the existing developed Lot 1 shall lead to an
approved parking space. Any covered or uncovered parking area shall be approved and
permitted by the Community Development Department prior to approval and construction
of an approach off of Rachel Street. Otherwise, the plan shall show continuous curb,
gutter, and sidewalk.
37. The City will be accepting the completed pubic street improvements on Rachel Court for
public maintenance. The public improvement plans shall show the continuation of concrete
curb and gutter across neighboring Lots 10-12. The improvements shall continue around
the corner to provide for the curb ramp and integral spandrel and cross-gutter per City
Engineering Standards. The improvements may transition to an AC curb beyond the curb
return.
38. The trail connection to the Terrace Hill Open Space will be facilitated by the dedication of
a public trail easement, which shall be reviewed for acceptance by the Parks and Recreation
Commission prior to building permit issuance. The final grading plans and public
improvement plans shall show and note the detailed trailhead and trail improvements from
the public right-of-way to the property boundary at the Terrace Hill Open Space. The
improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department, Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, and Parks and
Recreation Director. Upon final acceptance of the public trail easement and trail
improvements, the City shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance and liability thereof.
The ARC recommends that the trailhead be relocated internal to the project site, between
Lots 16N & 17N.
39. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water
discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation
results in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one
acre which are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit.
Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General
Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Water Board’s SMARTS system. The required Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
number shall be included on all building and public improvement plans for reference.
40. The final grading, drainage, and building plans shall show and note compliance with the
project soils report and engineering geologist report recommendations. The soils engineer
and engineering geologist shall review the final plans and provide written documentation of
the compliance with their respective recommendations.
41. The engineer of record, soils engineer, and engineering geologist shall provide a specific
response to the proposal to collect and convey improved surface waters through the
proposed earthen swale/bio-swale that will be located upslope of existing and proposed
development. The engineer of record shall provide any additional recommendations if
warranted.
42. If open swales are proposed, the final plans shall provide specific details and maintenance
requirements for the property lines/fence lines and any security/safety issues related to
providing an open gap along the fence lines.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 59
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 8
43. The subdivision improvements and building plans shall include provisions to control any
collected or intercepted groundwater seepage that could be directed to the gutter at the
public street in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
44. The subdivision improvements and building plans shall show and note compliance with
Engineering Standard 1010.B for Storm Water Quality Management. This code
requirement is applicable to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious
driving and parking surfaces is more than 5,000 square feet. Water quality management is
required for the runoff from uncovered parking spaces and driveway areas. Projects
approved after March 6, 2013, may be subject to additional Post-Construction Stormwater
Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
45. The required Stormwater Operation and Maintenance documents and Private Stormwater
Conveyance Agreement shall be approved and agreements recorded as a condition of this
development.
Fire Department
46. Roof covering, eave construction, attic and under floor ventilation and exterior siding shall
comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A requirements.
47. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the California Fire Code.
Approved NFPA 13D systems will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and
Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Provide at
least one pilot head in the attic areas.
48. Rachel Court is proposed to be only 28 feet wide; parking will only be permitted for one
side. NO PARKING – FIRE LANE signage or stenciled red curbing will be required for
one side of the street to allow for a minimum 20 feet of unobstructed Fire Department
access roadway width.
Utilities Department
49. The proposed Air-Vac Assembly located at the end of Rachel Court (Grading and Drainage
plan sheet C4.0) shall be removed and the proposed fire hydrant shall be placed at this
location (see Public Works condition #38).
50. The proposed sewer line shall be relocated so as not to be located within the proposed bulb
out, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department.
51. Plans indicate a proposed sewer lateral to Lot 1. The existing sewer lateral (if any) shall be
abandoned per City Standards.
52. The relocated water meter to Lot 1 shall be located outside of the proposed bulb out.
53. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance
calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Chapter 17.87 of the
City’s Municipal Code.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 60
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 9
Building Department
54. A Demolition Application and Plan for removal of existing structures is to be provided for
review and approval.
55. New buildings constructed within City of San Luis Obispo shall conform to CRC R327.5
and R327.6. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 701A.1.1
56. Plans submitted for plan check on or after January 1, 2014, will be reviewed to conform to
requirements of the 2013 CA Building Codes.
On motion by Commissioner Wynn, seconded by Commissioner Palazzo, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Palazzo, McCovey-Good, Hopkins, Ehdaie, and Curtis
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Chair Duffy
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16th day of December, 2013.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 2
Packet Page 61