Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1988, 5 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY CHANGES TO APPROVED PLANS TO ADD A 5-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING TO A SITE WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTH STREET EAST OF KING STREET. ���I��► I�IIlilllll�� tY r "" $1 a 1pu�ul� c� o san tuts os�spo amoza COUNCI GENDA REPORT 'N 1c ae Mu tare, ommunity Development *Doctor PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action to deny changes to approved plans to add a 5-unit apartment building to a site with an existing house, located on the north side of South Street east of Ring Street. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the ARC's action. BACKGROUND Discussion The ARC approved plans for the project on July 18, 1986. The buildings were not built according to approved plans, and the appellant applied to the commission for after-the-fact approval of modified plans. On May 2, 1988, the ARC approved some of the requested changes, but denied others. The applicant has appealed the modifications denied by the commission. Significant Impact A negative declaration was approved for the original project, and the proposed modifications are categorically exempt from environmental review requirements. No significant fiscal or other impacts are anticipated. Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action If the council upholds the appeal, the buildings will remain as they are at present. If the council denies the appeal, the appellant will have to make the modifications required by the ARC on May 2. �� f city of San LUIS OBISp0 ii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Data Summary Address: 526 South Street Applicant: Virginia Ward Representative: Farrell Cummings Zoning: R-2 General Plan: Medium-density residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt Site Description The site is an "L-shaped" parcel with 13,462 square feet of area. There is a 50 foot frontage on Branch Street and a 100-foot frontage on South Street. The site is developed with a one-bedroom house which has been relocated on the site, and a recently completed 5-unit apartment complex. EVALUATION During construction of the apartment project, staff was consulted by the developers on several minor changes to the site and landscape plans. These changes were routinely evaluated and most were approved by staff. Staff was not consulted regarding numerous changes to the building design, and discovered the changes only at the time final inspection was requested. In staff's judgement, the changes constitute a significant modification to the ARC-approved design, and the builder was directed to conform to the approved plans or go back to the ARC and ask for modifications to the approved plans. Since the changes are related primarily to exterior trim, staff allowed occupancy of the building subject to posting a $1000 cash surety to guarantee completion of any additional work which might be required. The changes include the following: 1. Deletion of wood trim. lx trim around windows, doors and fascia, and 2x "belly band" trim between first and second floors was shown on plans approved by the ARC and permit issuance. None of the trim was installed. 2. Change to window frames. Bronze anodized frames were shown on ARC and building permit drawings; mill finish frames were installed. 3 . Balcony and stair railings. Shown on approved plans as vertical groove plywood to match gable ends. Installed with vertical 2x rails, no screening provided. 4. Stucco texture. Shown on approved plans with high relief texture above belly band, 'smooth below. Installed with moderate texture throughout. 501�L 0111111111100 city of San LUIS OBISpo Emkis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 The ARC approved the requested changes to the window frames, fascia trim, stucco texture, and balcony railings, but denied changes to the window and door trim and belly band trim. The attached letter of appeal from the contractor and owner refers to problems with installation of the trim in accordance with the approved plans. In the judgement of staff and the ARC, it is the responsibility of the designer and contractor to resolve these problems and obtain city approvals prior to construction. For this reason, staff suggests that the council focus on the quality of the structures' appearance in deciding whether to approve the changes, rather than the cost or difficulties of complying with approved plans. Staff would also note that the letter of appeal incorrectly states that the wood trim was included at the request of the ARC. The original plans submitted to the ARC included the same stucco and wood trim provisions as shown on the approved plans. PREVIOUS REVIEW No testimony from the general public was presented at the May 2, 1988 ARC meeting. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The city's Chief Building Official believes that maintenance problems noted in the appellant's letter can be minimized - although not necessarily completely eliminated - by use of screws in pre-drilled holes through the stucco to attach trim, and careful application of silicone caulking to holes. These measures would make it unlikely that the structural integrity of the building would be affected. ALTERNATIVES 1. The council may uphold the appeal, and approve the modifications to the building as requested by the appellant. 2. The council may deny the appeal. The appellant would have to install the trim as required by the ARC at their May 2, 1988 meeting. 3. The council may continue the appeal, with direction to the staff and appellant regarding additional information required. �- 3 �����►�►►�►IIII�{I�����gl�lll MY of San LUIS OSISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's actions.. Attachments: Vicinity Map Letter of Appeal Approved Plans Letter to Applicant of ARC Action ARC Minutes (forthcoming) Draft Resolution: Denying Appeal gts2:ar8660cc S RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BUILDING PLANS FOR 526 SOUTH STREET (ARC 86-60) WHEREAS, the appellant requested approval by the Architectural Review Commission of various amendments to plans for a building site at 526 South Street, said plans having been approved previously by the ARC pursuant to application ARC 86-60; and WHEREAS, the .Architectural Review Commission considered the request at its May 2, 1988 meeting and approved changes to window frames, fascia trim, stucco finish, and balcony railings, but denied changes to window, door, and "belly band" trim; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 1988, the appellant appealed the Architectural Review commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and takes an action to require installation of window, door, and "belly band" trim as approved by the ARC; based upon a finding that deletion of the approved trim significantly detracts from the overall quality of the building design. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: S Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 the foregoing document was passed and adopted this day of 1988. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk Pam Voges APPROVED: City A inistrative Officer City A orne Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL .OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BUILDING PLANS FOR 526 SOUTH STREET (ARC 86-60) WHEREAS, the appellant requested approval by the Architectural Review Commission of various amendments to plans for a building site at 526 South Street, said plans having been approved previously by the ARC pursuant to application ARC 86-60; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission considered the request at its May 2, 1988 meeting and approved changes to window frames, fascia trim, stucco finish, and balcony railings, but denied changes to window, door, and "belly band" trim; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 1988, the appellant appealed the Architectural Review commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and takes an action to approve the deletion of window, door, and "belly band" trim previously required by the ARC, based upon a finding that deletion of the approved trim does not significantly detract from the overall quality of the building design. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5- 7 Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 the foregoing document was passed and adopted this day of 1988. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk Pam Voges APPROVED: C ty Adm nistrative Officer City At o ey Community Development Director n r, • • • Y � • • 1• �r •. LIM 7 • an 13 NTC • OL a q ® N r iw 8 O ® i v Wa. = ; m P N � ° Q t o or - <: O A '' ONIM ..•r •,� 9M2 �JN•IA : i.` m ciscc E9LL M1w _ �... moo CL r _ + O AI aa- ` ( oa --i � � � < 1 t Ota :g t LS slaavH — — •- to •{{ u aO i � `< • • e � J �����V��I�IuIII�Vlllllllll �I�����I��II I I�II�II II city of sAn tuis oBi V0 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Architecturasl Review Co=ission rendered on Vay 29 1988 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed) : Deletion of --ood tris around ;rindo; s, doors and fascia and a "belly brtnd" Let: een first and second floors. The contractor felt this would not be good construction at the time of construction. The bLildinf-s are finished no=r and to nail rood rnO nails in the concrete— stucco mould not only d_mafne the buildinr-, but ruin tl;e rater sea.l. and allow moisture, dry rot and milder: to invade the building. The rood would be an additional source of frery ent n:air.tenn.nce— versus at least 15 Years trouble free stucco. The trim, was an item left over when the ARC rr.nted the oerner to build a wood structure instead of stucco. 'mit:: the additional landscaping, fences and trees ;rl:icii in a fe- years :rill hide most of the buildings in any case, any additional fertrues rill only make tI:e.ae buildings too "busy" from an artistspoint of rie;r. The renters, and everyone ':ho i;as seen these buildings like tl:er, just the eras ti;ey are and we would like to present further views The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: on Appellant: / Namellitle Virr .ia ,ar °.L, osner �. 7arrel l Cum:inn s Contrnctor RECEIVED Janes :oIFeBn, -Des i/-rer MAY 6 1988 895 Calle Del Cogiinoc, Sr^ Tris ^bis•• crry cLEM Address s,ur wrcrj5pcwo.CA 541 —61;.5 Phone ; ,,eriginal for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Cal nda dor: ` b Copy to City Administrative Officer Cop to following department(s) : City Cler �ir� �_� ':�;fit.f :•, • ;.L�� ',' xa 7 �• , gyp` f' Y•: r PHOTO f � s i d � q a• `�... ca Q ❑ rLl Q r > r C 7 W ui r t• 7 `Y a ti �9 ti b � Z � a Q jr N� A i Fl 4i: v C i; w r IF w w f I I $_ rj_— r � ) --t—r LLJ 'j0a W y i '1: R_, 6 J _ _ �• LE • z ; 4 -2 CA w w � - Y C J 1 1).O O I a I o _.� . 4 �I .40 FSTI • f me 9 LiJ W I - Li VI I i � 3 f 9 (--,nl '5.,11J I Co .Clow � Clow _+ oi r ul 7 { J ? bL mF YW OOOYIII ri s O _ LLJ 9 i o i > i �-- w w 3 e x I's r ' 2 4 � d 4 Q . Q W1 �n :, ❑ FF r'2� O ,� as07 kf A ' �. . r g .. A .,r;. ii 33yy ygjJ 9F� .9 •IU Nip M 1'V +� �.N� 95 1. w. � I • 5.. Y, t •j— .j r r- i y i • li ; - I T , 2:. .9 1; �.+�, .:.'. � �j .. ;. —•ter.••-... r ; LL LJJ $ LLI Z r S i Z Ln i E El Cal IL [, — -— A ai l r u :EYING AGENDA s DATE JUN 'as ITEM # 095 Calle Del Caminos .�. San Luis Obispo— May 23 , 1988 *Demes action by Lead Perean Respond by: Mr. Ron Dunin, Mayor ❑Comm Council Office ❑CAO 990 - Palm Street ❑Gtyatty. P.O. Box 8100 ❑Clerk-prig. San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ❑ - �, Dear Mayor Dunin, ❑ On May 2nd, 1988, the Architectural Review Commission denied changes to wood trim around windows, doors and fascia. They also wanted a "belly band" between first and second floors. The contractor, Farrell Cummings, felt this would not be good construction. Jack Cellerman,Head Building Inspector, also concurred that this was not sound construction practice. The buildings are finished now and to hammer wood and nails into the stucco at this point would not only damage the buildings but ruin the water seal thus allowing moisture, dry rot and mildew to invade the structures . The wood trim would be an additional source of frequent maintenance- versus at least 15 years of trouble free stucco. The trim was an item left over when the ARC wanted the owner to build a wood structure instead of stucco. With the additional landscaping, fences and trees , which in a few years will hide most of the buildings in any case, any additional features will only make these buildings too "busy" from an artistic point of view. The tenants , visitors and everyone who has seen the buildings like them just the way they are and everyone comments on how beautiful they look. I would like very much to show you these buildings so you can judge for yourself. I work nights so can arrange my time to suit your convenience. Or, if you prefer, you could drive by and view them at any time on your own. The address is 526 South Street, across from Meadow Park. They are light grey with blue trim. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours , Virginia Ward 541-6125 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 19885 �g 0 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS 09i5P0.CA 'nJ ME' 11G • AGENDA DATE r"" a ee ITEM # Draft ARC Minutes RECEIVED CC."Cowew� May 2, 1988 JUN 01 198.8 �U�1rJ CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA �' / • M. X1v/fi ;7 1. ARC 86-60: 527 Branch Street; add 5 apartments to site with existing house; R-2 zone; plan revisions. Commr. Morris stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of changes to window frames, fascia and belly band trim and denial of changes to window trim and balcony railings. Ferrell Cummings, representative, resppnded to the staff report and noted he did not realize the sensitivity of the trim package. He noted the building appearance was good as is now and requested that the commission approve the revisions. Virginia Ward, applicant, noted the architectural review process had been lengthy. She agreed with Mr. Cummings that the buildings were attractive as is and felt the belly band trim would detract from the project's design. She asked whether the trim could be painted on the stucco. Commr. Starr wanted to reach a compromise between the approved as as-built designs. He suggested the applicant change the belly band trim, balcony details, and window trim subject to staff's recommendation. Commr. Gates felt the deck railings were acceptable as the existing, but the window trim should be installed and perhaps painted a light blue. Commr. Bradford felt the project was acceptable now, but felt that trim might help future appearance. She liked the installation of the redwood stairs and questioned what the maintenance plan was for staining. Commr. Cooper felt these items should be addressed by the project's designer. He favored consistency and supported staff's recommendation. Commr. Starr moved to approve changes to window frames, fascia trim, stucco finish, and balcony railings, but to deny changes to the window and door trim and "belly band" trim for the above project. Commr. Gates seconded the motion. AYES: Starr, Gates, Bradford, Starr, Cooper NOES: Baur, Jones, Morris ABSENT: Baur The motion passes. Commr. Morris returned. to the meeting.