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.