HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/1988, 2 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) DENIAL FOR ADDING THREE APARTMENTS TO A SITE WITH A HOUSE ON MURRAY STREET, NEAR HATHWAY (ARC 87-219). III��I�III�IIIII^�I III MEETING DATE:
civ' of san tins osIspo 10-4-$e
MijS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU!T:
FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission (ARC) denial for adding three
apartments to a site with a house on Murray Street, near Hathway (ARC 87-219).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The ARC considered similar plans for this project in April. Commissioners did not
support the project as proposed, but thought plans revised to address commission concerns
could be approved. While commissioners made a motion to continue the item with
direction, the applicant said he would prefer a denial so he could appeal to the
council. The commission then denied the project and the applicant filed an appeal. Just
before the council hearing on the appeal, the applicant asked that the appeal be
continued so he could take revised plans back to the ARC.
The ARC considered revised plans on June 20, and continued action with direction, with
concerns including accuracy and completeness of plans, pedestrian appeal and access,
driveway circulation, and consistency of windows and roof lines. The applicant returned
with further revised plans at the ARC's September 6 meeting. Commissioners voted four to
three to deny the project, citing continuing problems with accuracy and completeness of
plans, excessive building mass, and insufficient usable open space.
The applicant has appealed that action.
Data Summary
Address: 1275 Murray Street
Applicant/owner- Douglas Michie
Designer: Jeff DeVico
Zoning: R-3
Land Use Element map: medium-high-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt as a new, small structure.
Action deadline: None (action has been taken).
Evaluation
Staff's evaluation is contained in the attached report to the ARC. Staff noted that the
latest revised plans responded to some but not all of the ARC's concerns. Also, staff
was concerned with the apparent pattern of the plans' solution to one problem coming at
the expense of other items.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other departments have made comments which would affect the appearance of the
building.
,111114I1f`�ll city of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 87-219 Appeal
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES
The council may uphold the appeal and approve the plans as submitted, or with revisions.
Approval may include details to be approved by staff.
The council may deny the appeal and the application. Denial would include a finding that
the project does not conform with the city's architectural guidelines.
The council may continue action.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution to deny the appeal, finding that the project does not meet
architectural review guidelines concerning accuracy and completeness of plans,
compatibility with the neighborhood, and usable open space.
Attached: Vicinity map
Draft resolution to deny appeal
Applicant's statement
ARC staff report
ARC minutes, June 20 and September 6, 1988
Enclosed: plans (available in Council Office for inspection) .
Available at meeting: Color/material board
gml/87219cc
I
Co 0 '
w
o SNA
OT ex tel 4
(� a Apt ??.t;,�u
O \J K v
„
r
- _ eacA xfmTmrNT� '.'.
MAY ` M1CCiT� ��;
3 Rci '" W
KR -4
b' iN
O ,p errw,vY c
n Lai IT�
W , A
��' h7rD� �•I
Nr HuNG
,u Z53 3
i IO W#JB
f p �t V0
V-R0•MGK5'1
MS 110
04T
V
wIuamI—,-
4
10 LWV&V
O elk"77
.a, r�F
z �r
�e�
-O pi
- su
A74e .
MURRAY AVENULU
•r to /Y7J 12r /Z 27 _
W Vi80
O O O VOW i O , z "
.. W " O
tI O > O
Soo
O O O ` 2
PF 5
y" O
s
i
�Z0 h3
O—O
„XC,>7,
W -
n O
_ ARC re-$s
11c, _ f
I-g-R
ej
��
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
(ARC 87-219)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on April 4, 1988, considered the
application by Douglas Michie to add three apartments to a site with a house at 1275
Murray Street, and denied the request upon determining that the project did not meet
architectural review guidelines concerning neighborhood compatibility and usable open
space; and
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed that decision to the City Council, the Council
considered the appeal May 3, 1988, and continued action at the applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission considered revised plans on June 20 and
September 6, 1988, and at the latter meeting denied the request upon determining that the
project did not meet architectural review guidelines concerning accuracy and completeness
of plans, neighborhood compatibility, and usable open space; and
WHEREAS, the applicant again has appealed to the council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant,
the project plans, records of the Architectural Review Commission's actions, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff;
• NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and the application, based
on the findings of the Architectural Review Commission.
On motion of ........................w.. , seconded by ............................
and on the following roll call vote: -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ...... day of •............, 1988.
................................
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
c
City Ad inistrative Officer
CityX't rney
:u................
Community Development Director
cityo sAn W1 OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of AD&NzTEc-TWYAL- 1.FdjEw C-A*-f'�IcA3rd rendered
on —L�6 r 19 B!& . which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
r
Use additional sheets as needed) :
-f % w,f
�e dei, � e A-es-, l'� e� sere,.-�L� Mee .,�-�S n
� ,J�•c�,-,
cs s -�X �eN c , .� or tL e
s4, TL`e
V, )'t--) S ZA 4e)
p, T�ft7e
undersigned iscussed the decision eigg appealed from with:
onI .
4=Z
nTrES
pellant: l J 1
Dace Appeal Received: r
ame/Title
Representative
RECEIVE ® S •
SEP 1 CLERK lA_ �cd M C 3`Y?
arSOBISP q9`S�� 3 &O
SAN LUISg8�5P0.CA
Phone
Original for City Clerk
U Copy to City Attorney
Palenaredfor: 0 O Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to trre�e following department(s) :
N Mvl ta.Ni
City Clerk
�IIIIIIIIII01I�III���I�� IIIIII� COMMUNITY
� p1►U��I� city of san tins oBIspo DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) MEETING DATE September 6, 1988
BY Glen MattesRCA"ssociate Planner. ITEM NO.
PROJECT ADDRESS 1275 Murray Street FILE NO. ARC 87-219
SUBJECT:
Reconsideration of revised plans to add three apartments to a site with an existing
house, on the south side of Murray Street near Hathway.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Determine whether revised plans adequately respond to commission direction. If not, let
the previous denial stand. If they do, grant schematic approval.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The commission denied different plans for this project on April 4, finding that they did
not meet architectural guidelines concerning neighborhood compatibility and usable open
space on the site. The applicant appealed to the City Council, but asked that the appeal
be continued pending ARC consideration of revised plans. On June 20, the ARC considered
plans similar to the current submittal, and continued action with direction to revise
several items, noted below.
Data Summary
Applicant/owner: Douglas Michie
Designer: Jeff DeVico
Zoning: R-3
Land Use Element map: medium-high-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt as a new, small structure.
ARC action deadline: None (action has been taken).
Evaluation
When the project was last considered, commissioners offered this direction:
1. Plans need to be accurate and complete; include outdoor lighting and trees already
removed, to be removed, and to remain.
Plans do not show type of siding, window trim, and roof material.
Species and status of trees still are not accurate. The tree closest to the
street which was removed was a deodar cedar, not an elm, and it was located
closer to the eastern property line than the current plans show.
Replacement trees (two 24-inch-box elms) are shown near the rear parking area.
n�.qn
ARC 87-219
Page 2
The plans continue to contain errors that staff fears will lead to
code-compliance problems, even if they do not affect project appearance.
Example: the first-floor (parking area) and second-floor dimensions are not
consistent (34 feet total vs. 32 feet total); if the larger building dimension
is correct, outdoor parking space would have to be reduced, possibly making
turning/backup space insufficient.
2. Reconsider keeping the existing house, which imposes design constraints, particularly
on usable open space and pedestrian access.
The basic design approach of bulding in front of, over, and behind the house has
not changed.
3. Try to create more appeal to pedestrians at the north (street) elevation.
First floor (garage) windows have been added, as suggested.
4. Try to improve access to the upper units from the parking area.
A four-foot wide walkway is shown under the building, where previously people
would have had to walk through the parking spaces. Also, the outdoor walkway is
shown extending to the street.
5. The laundry room may be too narrow to be usable.
The proposed laundry room has been relocated to a larger space within the area
of the existing house.
6. Make windows and roof-lines consistent.
Window types and locations and roof angles are more consistent.
7. To improve circulation in the driveway, the garage door should be equipped with an
automatic opener and to improve appearance, the carports should have garage doors.
Plans do not show these features.
Staff noted these additional concerns:
8. Back-up space for the middle under-building space appears to be insufficient, due to
the column location.
This is still a concern.
9. While the "BBQ area" is sheltered from wind, it would be shaded nearly all the time.
ALTERNATIVES
The commission need not reconsider this project. If it does not, the applicant could
pursue his appeal to the City Council or submit a new application.
ARC 87-219
Page 3
The commission may rescind its previous action and:
Grant schematic approval, indicating that the design approach is acceptable but
details must be revised before final commission action.
Grant final approval, with or without items to be approved by staff.
The commission may continue action.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMWIENTS
The latest revised plans were not routed to other departments for comments. Previous
comments noted the need for revised parking dimensions and for fire sprinklers, and that
the water resource deficiency may delay or prevent obtaining building permits.
RECOMNIENDATION
If the commission agrees with staff that the continuing revisions are not adequately
dealing with design problems, it should let stand the previous action to deny the
application, and encourage the applicant to start over in designing a project without the
constraints of the existing house and with the help of a design professional.
If the commission supports the basic direction the project has taken, staff would
recommend granting schematic approval, with the following items to be resolved during
final review:
1. Reconciliation/adjustment of dimensions to meet parking and driveway standards;
2. Details of exterior siding and trim;
3. Fencing and outdoor lighting;
4. Garage doors/openers.
ATTACHED: Vicinity map
ARC minutes 6-20-88
ENCLOSED: Revised plans
Aavilable at meeting: Previous plans
Color board
gm2/arc87219
ARC Minutes
June 20, 1988
Page 3
John Pyo, applicant, responded to the sta report and concurred with staff's
recommendation.
Commr. Cooper indicated he didn't mind a use of piers. He asked what color the
chimney would be.
Commr. Bradford wanted a reduction in 1 n area in the front and suggested one
larger area rather than two. She wanted t e building colors toned down. She felt
they were too light for a hillside area.
Commr. Morris had no problems with the p oject but suggested the applicant use
drought tolerant grasses for the lawn. He reed the trim color was too light and
that darker building colors should be used.
Commr. Gates questioned the necessity of t e back-up area in the parking area. She
questioned whether the south-facing windo s should be removed for noise mitigation.
She felt the deck should be kept away fro the bathroom window. She felt the
proposed colors were acceptable.
Commr. Jones felt the proposal was accepta le. He wanted oak trees used exclusively
on the lot. He felt the light beige color wa okay.
Commr. Gates moved to grant final approva to the project with darker building
colors, a detailed landscaping plan, and fcni ing details to return to staff for
approval.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Gates, Bradford, Jones, Morris, Co per
NOES: None
ABSENT: Starr
The motion passes.
3. ARC 87-219:. 1275 Murray Street; add 3-unit apartment to site with existing
house; R-3 zone; schematic review of revised project.
David Moran, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending a
continuance with direction to revise the project plans.
Jeff DeVico, representative, responded to the staff report, and indicated he had
taken recommendations from the previous meeting and revised the plan.
�" Id
ARC Minutes
June 20, 1988
Page 4
Commr. Jones noted it was difficult to read the plans. He felt that completeness
was important and inconsistencies were a problem. He referred to the window details
and felt the north elevation needed some relief. He felt morc-pedestrian/resident
orientation toward the street was needed. He questioned the need for windows over
the storage area. He suggested that exterior lighting be added and a complete
landscape plan be submitted.
Commr. Morris questioned under what authority was the palm tree removed? He felt
the access to most of the units was bad. He didn't care for the site plan, feeling
it looked imposing from Murray Street. He wanted the site to be inspected with the
existing landscaping tagged and that none be removed. He felt the trees along the
driveway must be accommodated, with additional landscaping details and more trees
added to the site.
Commr. Gates questioned the size of the units. She thought the laundry room was too
narrow to be functional and that not enough details were shown on the plans. She
liked the clerestory feature and the proposed colors, but didn't care for the
garage door design.
Commr. Bradford felt the street elevation was bad and suggested stepping the
building back with perhaps the use of windows facing the street She felt the
existing house should be removed and that more open space on the site be provided.
Commr. Cooper felt the applicant had made a good attempt to revise the plans but
felt more work was needed. He suggested reorienting pedestrian access to the units
outside the carport toward the street. He wanted automatic door openers used for
the garage and doors added to carports.
Kin Bruce, Senior Planner, suggested the roof details at each end of the building
should be the same in appearance. He also commented that the common patio and
barbecue location was very poor because the area would be shaded most of the time.
Commr. Morris moved to continue consideration of the project with direction as
indicated and that any further submittals include the siting of existing trees on
the property in their exact location (including the stump of the cedar and palm
trees that have been cut down), and that all existing plant materials on the
property be preserved while the project is waiting to receive final approval.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Morris, Bradford, Jones, Gates, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Starr
The motion passes.
ARC miautes 94=88 forthcoming.
i