HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1990, 5 - ARC 90 - 12: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING THE DEMOLITION OF FOUR BU MEETING DATE:
►►�Illil��pnt►�����I city of San ILII s OBISPO IP-I -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ""U
FROM: Arnold Jonas, CAmImunity Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner, sociate Planner
SUBJECT: ARC 90 - Fir.. Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's
action approving the demolition of four buildings (two
residences and two sheds) , renovation of three remaining
buildings, and the addition of seven apartments to the rear
of three lots, on the north side of Sandercock Street,
between Beebee and Cypress Streets.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC's action to:
1. Find the four buildings at the rear of the lots to be of no
significant esthetic, cultural, or historical value, and approve their
demolition; and
2. Grant final approval to ARC 90-12 with findings and
conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The Architectural Review Commission granted final approval to a project
at the site, after holding hearings on March 19, April 16, and May 14,
1990. Neighbors present at the final hearing expressed concerns over
the height, mass, and density of the project. One of the neighbors
Appealed the ARC's decision. Appeals of ARC decisions are heard by the
council. i
Data summary
Addresses: 236, 238, & 240 Sandercock Street
Applicants/property owners: Leslie Vandewalle and John Vial
Representative: Barry Lorenz Williams Associates
Zoning: R-2
General plan: Medium density residential
Environmental status:
Project action deadline: September 20, 1990
Site description
The site consists of five lots of record, to be adjusted into three lots.
The lots slope from 240 to 236 Sandercock, generally toward the rear of
236. Five residences currently exist on the three lots, two of which are
at the rear of 238 and 240 Sandercock. The residences and sheds at the
rear are in poor condition. Driveways currently exist for each lot, but
are not improved.
The neighborhood contains older single-family dwellings and apartments.
The three lots back up to a parking lot for an apartment building facing
city of san tuts osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 90-12
Page 2
High Street, and are adjacent to small single-family residences on either
side.
Project description
The applicants want to remove the buildings at the rear, reduce the
number of lots from five to three, and add apartments to the three
separate new lots. The project consists of:
236 8andercock:
Addition of a two-story duplex (two 904-S.F. one-bedroom apartments) to
a 70644-S.F. site containing a 673-S.F. one-bedroom dwelling.
238 Sandercock:
Demolition of a one-story residence and shed, and addition of a two-
story duplex (one 915-S.F. one-bedroom, one 450-S.F. studio) to a 8,457-
S.F. site containing a duplex (one 1117-S.F. one-bedroom, one 450-S.F.
studio) .
240 8andercock:
Demolition of a one-story residence and shed, and addition of a triplex
(two 904-S.F. one-bedroom apartments and one 450-S.F. studio apartment)
to a 9,644-S.F. site containing a 990-S.F. one-bedroom dwelling.
To make room for the project, three trees are proposed to be removed.
EVALUATION
1. Size and convertibility of units. Initially, the Architectural Review
Commission was concerned that the size of the one-bedroom apartments
was large, and that they may be easily converted to two-bedroom
apartments. The commission also felt the buildings were tall and may
= be out of scale with the neighborhood. The plans were revised, making
the unit conversion more difficult, and the commission found the
revised plans acceptable.
However, the commission was still concerned about how the existing
apartments were designed, and in its approval required that building
plans show the dividing walls between the dens and living areas
removed.
In comparison to recent projects, the size of the units is not
unusual. The applicant has researched projects back to 1987, and a
few before that time. The attached chart shows that sizes of approved
one-bedroom units ranged from 550 to 998 square feet in area, with the
majority over 800 square feet.
CI-W O� San 1U1S OBISPO
MINGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 90-12
Page 3
City staff organized, in the spring of 1988, a workshop on unit size
and density. The workshop stemmed from an ARC concern about the size
of units being proposed and built. That commission recommended size
limits for one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom dwellings. The
workshop included concerned citizens, developers, realtors, council
and commission members; and staff, and involved field trips to various
developments in town. There was concern expressed about the height
and bulk of newer buildings in relation to older, smallerdwellings,
particularly in sensitive neighborhoods. However, the group as a
whole did not support size limits. Shortly after, the council denied
an amendment to the zoning regulations imposing such limits.
The issue of unit size and density is in the council's workprogram and
is scheduled to be considered as part of the Housing Element update.
2. Consistency with standards. The project is consistent with zoning
standards for density, height, yards, coverage, and parking. One
exception was requested for the project: the number of driveways
exceeds the number normally allowed. The Parking and Driveway
Standards say that no more than one driveway per lot is allowed in
residential areas. Four are shown, for the three lots. The Public
Works Director approved the additional driveway, finding no public
safety issues. The Architectural Review Commission required
additional screening of one of the uncovered parking spaces next to
the existing house at 240 Sandercock.
One concern expressed by the appellant is that the proposed buildings
are two stories in height. The buildings are well within the height
limit for the R-2 zone (351) , as the highest point is 26' above.
average grade. While not many two-story buildings exist in the
immediate block, the surrounding area contains a large number. In the
last several years, virtually all new apartment projects approved in
this area as well as in other R-2 zones in the city have included two-
story buildings.
If the council. determines, with appropriate findings, that two-story
buildings are inappropriate for the area, it may require the
applicants to redesign the project. A redesign could involve greater
coverage of the lot by buildings, to obtain similar density.
3. Zoning. The site and surrounding area are zoned R-2 (medium-density
residential) . According to city records, the zoning has been in place
since at least 1947. As indicated on the attached vicinity map, the
area is substantially committed to medium-density infill development.
Several letters were submitted at the ARC hearings or to the Community
Development Department. The letters indicate a difference of opinion,
among residents of the area, on the appropriateness of the zoning.
In staff's opinion, the zoning is consistent with the general plan and
appropriate for the area.
611111$�� M1§1 city of San 1U1 S OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT"
ARC 90-12
Page 4
4. Overlook and shading. Neighbors next to the project have expressed
concern that the buildings will shade their yards and will interfere .
with their privacy. The ARC discussed both these issues. The shading
issue was raised particularly with respect to the building at the rear
of 236 Sandercock. A shading plan was prepared by the applicants'
representatives, which was reviewed by staff and found to be accurate.
The plan shows a corner of the rear yard of the adjacent lot (2026
Beebee) to be shaded on the morning of December 21 (the longest
shadows of the year) , as well as about 1/4 of the yard at 2016 Beebee.
Shading to the east (afternoon sun) affects primarily the parking lot
to the rear of the site. The rest of the year the shading would be
less. The buildings have been sited so that yards are larger than
required by the zoning regulations. Staff and the commission found
no significant shading impacts.
The commission did have concerns about the potential for overlook from
upper windows into nearby yards. There is an upper level deck with
a glazed door, and a window at 236 Sandercock, and upper level windows
at 240 Sandercock. The commission required large trees to be planted
to screen views'from these locations, and further required the windowir _
at 236 Sandercock to be modified to prevent overlook.
4. Engineering concerns. The appellant expresses concern about water,
sewer, the environment, and traffic. No. water is guaranteed for the
project, beyond what is currently available for existing apartments
on the lots. The Public Works Department confirms that the sewage
system is adequate for the added load, and finds no significant
traffic hazard in the vicinity. staff has identified no environmental
impacts warranting study.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may deny the appeal, thereby upholding the, Architectural
Review Commission's action, as recommended by staff, or with modified
conditions. The applicants would be allowed to apply for building
permits, but would not be able to build without a water allocation.
The council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the project design.
To develop the property, the applicants would have to submit new designs
to the Architectural Review Commission for consideration.
The council may continue the matter for further consideration. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal by upholding the ARC's action
granting final approval to ARC 90-12, subject to findings and conditions
included in the attached draft resolution number 1.
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
APPROVING THE ADDITION OF SEVEN APARTMENTS TO THREE LOTS
ON SANDERCOCK, BETWEEN BEEBEE AND CYPRESS STREETS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the application ARC 90-12, and
the Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations
and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site
or in the vicinity.
2• The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets
zoning ordinance requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
5. The four buildings at the rear of the lots at 236, 238, and
240 Sandercodk are of no significant esthetic, cultural,
or historical value, and may be demolished.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval is subject to
the following conditions:
1. Dividing walls between dens and living areas in existing
units shall be removed.
2• Entries to driveways shall be of a textured or stamped
concrete.
3. The fence on the east property line of 240 Sandercock shall
be three feet high, and the retaining wall in front of 238
Sandercock shall be screened wtih landscaping.
I
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-12: 236, 238, 240 Sandercock
Page 2
4. Large trees shall be planted at the rear, east and west
Property lines at 236 and 240 Sandercock to prevent
overlook into neighboring yards.
5. The sidewalk at the front of 240 Sandercock, between the
front of the house and the parking area, shall be
simplified to produce a straighter access.
6• The existing "studio apartment" at 238 Sandercock shall be
modified to. meet the definition of a studio, or one of the
one-bedroom apartments shall be changed to a studio
apartment.
7. The windows on the west elevation of the new unit at 236
Sandercock shall be modified to avoid overlook.
On motion of seconded
by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
O Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-12: 236, 238, 240 Sandercock
Page 3
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
X14ze"11�(
itt Aorr�7y
Community Develv9ment Director
DRAFTRESOLUTIONNO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
APPROVING A SEVEN-UNIT ADDITION TO THREE LOTS, ON SANDERCOCR
STREET, BETWEEN BEEBEE AND CYPRESS STREETS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after.
consideration of public testimony, the application ARC 90-12, and
the Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations
and reports thereon, makes the following finding:
1. The project is inconsistent with the general plan, and out
of context with the surrounding existing development.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action is approved, and the request for approval of
the design is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by _
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. - (1989 Series)
Tract 1823
Page 2
APPROVED:
City A nistrative Officer
ty ney�
Community Devel pm nt Director
}
Jzl:res\sndckno.wp
♦ tr '
�•r:w;a�1 �� �V S. r. .' .<. tV' -••`�N. x�r..�V .•�r: .� i(� •t� Yi '6�l• l^ri:.
•,�/x, Y� w ��" � O''•NN����tJ. �_w� ����i• { ��. h. .y,��i� �• ''• �f•�r.:i'y+ � t
...ij.± !� � � - � �T 1� aA',••} � �� Sa' O�-• • wr 1\•��� •r{s:.: w\,p,
gaY_. rVV"+ '✓ 1�>°r F'•'•I `'j?+� �.7'�' O f Owl. o :e• ;:: .
,at •�: �y"., tti•�;.�; • t��•+r• -Y o t.{b, ., •`. r....•�� C• __ t� -vA
�µ'• �-j 't � >'ti; �•fY .'4`\�. 3?:•�Z'•' „'i:•�\ S� ��� •\ s'. `� .9 7•t• ��'�v�-.:��'t•�i:�'�,
• 's J .1 �.y��,^. :,i� •i � . ai:!r.. X1.1 •.::+, .F?. r'�.�
- �I���.. !� A1Y --✓ Z ��i``: •• � ��••� v,yL�:�i. :fes ar. fr. ' ��f,•
`r r ¢.' + J r�" t Oma• •w�••� r .� _r. jvu.
.; y�a� ' �ia",r _••' , �::,,i,p.av � �� , ' ar O n^.►. fi ,,^ •\r �� -y1.,;':`i`'.
s sy ,. o • eee1. O•
�� a/VYsj• �Q' 1 '. ,7j �M Y t • '� _� � � `�,e•.' I� r, ;r1� �r� N •L''•:' V
ti, 1•h'3.�9 ..O Y Je'xi -rcZe�'v S tO'
�+ 'd4 • �� �••'•`4.itt). 'v v� '�l.•. � ...�..: �. d,•Z� 19..r"ti! r�q-• ,�:� I�
Yy�`` � �,,��� ..: i •:. F'^ '�''y
tp .: • qtr" _'!� t;'
* "�� 1. 1it•L`•2±.a yw.•`� ^i�, .�? • - —C j•_•. 'S; r •r .. -- mss,._
WO
22
77 Ll
,�r� .::i:•- �� —�"i' ems`. ..•. .- ..
—.: �'»».t»..•.::z:: HIGH••«• � b.�3-'
. t, �. �._ . •tel 'a:..:.
• J.y,.� Sym11 'r�r.',i . 1 L 1
Coll
rt++'•a ; TTT fel � AIL /�,, •• _ _ _': a: -.' -a i
r
f, N. • S 4a
_J.::: newt•e : O ..0� t _ �•�_ � _
J
_ '��,� I • •:
SANOERCO"C._ K , '- r Ma:;+
fib
T3R2
Ir
` mr100H -
OO
•y.w •t•O•tR. __ Q
Nil
W7 a
•:J I �1 aw i i
`F its 5,,,r •� -Ts i'r'f .: _. ':n.: rt:" w. ,> ••��'.• _
ii r i .�':.�. •�1 ��'. . •�G • 'M•f• ��t.'- >a y ''�tp_a v.
dt • :• �.n W: :� - •, �`•"�,i; �y • +'Y •c- •'}� - is
14:4
.�� � 'a�[a, N_�r� .t..o e a �•-:•.+s —.•.�'ry.�, ts'< :'I_• � 4' .. iae'T • •at rVw• �■ �^ �..
w -Sig
=7 : -"£ _ W io.` ♦� ��"��It K J ! � �� �1•' + � � tai {
k=�•• � � '� � •• 'J�'•t e`:n,1i.��J.����pp. t�t : �.� • t Zi ` . '_� h~ �...' �r` y �i;� �.i.
[��s �� KI••1•l � �tYi.oa-`i�A ati' �'••r X'�.'�,:IQ6i:�t��Y' '•.�M•�►.--• ���+?"��!' ti�:�•.�.
'Y` ,•K:n _uN•i ..:L:L•_ r•.a:.i•e•.r�i� Ir■•i�,. y �" :.
N
city o
sAn luis 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 ObIX Munlclpal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of //�� / � l CJ�QfiL �Cc/1G J `!AD 4Veidered
on &/_f AV which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
SFE ig%igGffsSO 6,E T
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on lee.�.rr&O&J
Appellant:
��`SJky✓�¢L C�i✓ic
Name/Title
RECEIVE® C'rl ZZA,
/2'tJo�S.. redL6 .
Represen
MAY 2 1 1990 tve
ati
_ Z33 .S.v.�PCb�tt .S-T
CITY CLERK Address,
SAN WIS OBISPO,CA
l�L Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cale ed foAr: Copy to City Administrative Officer
\_ r / Cop to the following department(s) :
tJ . �T�,�5
City Cl r - *'
REC ' IVE®'..
MAY 2 1 1990
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
Ref: Final Approval of ARC 90-12 May 21 , 1990
I believe there is need for further review of this project. I
went to the meeting Monday night more out of curiosity than
anything else but came away feeling someone should speak up for
the people who actually live in the neighborhood since there
seems to be alot of absentee owners. Frankly I was quite
surprised that this had come along so far, and contrary to the
developers' claims we were never contacted at this address.
While I agree with the ARC that the Planning Board should have
updated R-2 zoning by now I disagree on ARC's contention that
it's out of their hands now as far as the number of units (7) ,
and the type (2 story apartments) . After all, why is it called
the ARC? I was impressed with the ARC's attention to the
smallest of details (if I ever have a question about landscaping
or color selection I'll know where to turn) , but it's the big
ones they avoided that bug me.
I believe there is a question of public nuisance and public
safety on several points of this project. You do realize that
this project adding 7 new apartments in the back of 3 houses of
the original neighborhood (these are extremely small lots) . You
do realize that this project is sticking 2 story structures in
where there weren't any before. Right now I can step out in the
front yard and see a normal suburbia America with no apartments
or 2 story buildings. We've already blown that atmosphere on
Branch, Beebee and High Streets. It really is nice to come home
to. That part about putting in high and wide windows so the
neighbors can maintain their privacy was pretty funny too; who
are we kidding?
I believe a more thorough engineering study is called for
including water, sewer, environment and especially traffic. How
this got through your water and sewer departments in these times
is beyond me. I can't believe the surrounding water pressures
will be the same nor can I believe that sewage flow wouldn't have
a greater possibility of stoppage with this trippling of use at
one spot. For now we'll have to assume you've done your homework.
The environmental part is pretty neat too; let me get this
straight: we leave our backyard like a mess for year and then we
go to you guys and tell you were going to do you a favor and
clean up our own little rats' nest at the same time, all for a
nice little profit. What a great country! Now for the kicker:
I've been lucky enough to have been able to work with planning
boards all over the country and I don't think any of them
including your own would allow a crest in the road like you've
got in front of this project. It's a borderline call on having
the legal Minimum vertical Sight Distance. I'll buy each member
of the board a can of soda pop if it is legal. The street is
supposed to be a 25 MPH zone and getting started and heading
uphill eastbound from Beebee that's usually the case, but
westbound I've seen them go anywhere from 25 to 45 MPH. Now your
� f�
wanting to add a minimum of 14 more cars coming in and out on a
G regular basis at the most critical spot (mind you that 6 non-
related people with 6 cars are already residing at 238 which is a
violation of your city code according to your staff) . Try it at
25 in both directions and you'll say "What's he talking about"?,
but it's after those first few fatalities where you'll have to
say to yourselves "Well, we did build it as wide as a freeway and
then approved thatidiotic project, right at that cute little
bump". Signs should probably be placed whether this gets approved
or not. Also, stand over by my house and look at the elevations.
of the 3 houses and make sure your tiering designs- -are in order .
especially at the entrances.
Finally, I don't think these absentee landlord/developers
really care about you, me or your city, but are motivated by
profit alone and that's a shame because the developers of the
future are going to have to be environmentalist and people-
oriented first. on one project in the Boston area we took a
parcel zoned for 22 houses and suggested 8 because that's what
type of zoning was surrounding it. It was very profitable and
everyone was pleased. I also think any time you go in and disturb
an existing neighborhood like your getting ready to allow here
that those neighbors should be compensated some how. I don't
think the neighborhood realizes what its in for. I smell a
stinky poo here and sometimes when it's at your door you can't
walk around it so you've got to pick it up. Therefore, because
one of the board members has a conflict of interest and there is
a question of public safety (and I'm sworn to uphold public
safety) , I'm forwarding this letter to some other people who I
think would be interested in this case as well. Your city has a
shortage of housing, lets not make it all up here.
Sincerely,
Rod D. Carter
S, �r; ,pp�,�i� AB�v7 TIE c,etS
AEC
iPG
2 -
Ot N • w
• 0t-0 P4 W
CO 'l7 to ; V1 C
N W to '� O V tl1 -H
41 4J W 44 m In W �N ,.� 'C!
•p N.IM
O O N t� O r4 rl of ` t` Ot N
0 Ln
$4
O V7 w
N N N O 1 'd N �p V Q
'Cf N .. b
+N1 'CS b Z7 d IC
.R-P4 -94 +I OA p
m V4_
9-4
N N N 1-1
.Q
® N N N N O N • v!~ d N 4 • 4)) . 1
0 go qu go go to 'Cf b 'O R7 X O 'CI 'd N b 0)
E b o a •C R w tow 3 oc w 3 0
wo
P3 O
O b
14q
as
m
a � t
P4 N 14
N >
O t0
a dP dP dP do dP do dP dP do
U
to V O N t0 M V N co V' N
1+f dP N M M N M N N - N N N
N 1
W �
OM _
a N04 m
.CI
41 C
d m N N N N N N N N N N
m
Ik7 FI
� a
14
ao
n
•
A N N N N N N N N N N
O 1 1 I 1 I i 1 1 1 1
m a a a s a a a a a a
CIO
so
ar
m
.a
CD Ro 0
OG m>q co $4 tp 01•x+ r- 0 oIm V4 mD
N N (n a C O In r♦ W n it A V4 C at t7
■ r1 O ) Ot f-j Ot N 0% 0 as+1 Ol.W CO 14 M N OD 14 1-. 14
N a�D A ODM m H CO w co 1` Go m to le co m co 10
b RUj m IU� O �Ucm '�UjM �UjN UN �Ujr3 QU� N UM Ute
ac RG i0rq R N A'i V' ai 9.4 r4 �i 1w N In in -J
5'4
.i O W W
4 C 3
m O 1a
A N 0
M at O
O Ob' ON
Co b byN
m 0
10 � rl toO1 O O►
\ in \ \
co 0
0 cc
m0 0
O i� O O
On ,q $4 $4
a NOco 4 � A PCA
m
FM
a
w
� m
a
o
n ao eo do cm
.r eh %D %o
a1P e'1 N N N
IG
m
mil
14
O
4
to N N N N
cq M CIO C40m
N W OG a a OG
a
b
a
1 �o m 0
� x
cn. en a
N $4V v U
m Nal NO NO NO
m m oo t%. m m m
® O b to C C G
w Qqr 49 49 svi
515
2
g9g
S
z
Lu
..V, j
W f I'm cwt trot cant [nr- •R Yn . . r a 7• . h
• E�
tv
y = _ ICJ
� I •
r
o -
M
•so
• • :I N 1` : Yi _
lu
0. x,
1p is
/ 4' 2 • r '`^ tc, tic'\� � } ;• ` x "" • •
L•!IIM• .• Do .
a pt6
: +t b•• of tsrl fLl'T 24rT :
• iaaa.i:s aasaaa
y' IM •fsn IN Ib3 N.er1 f•n GO.tP •Yo•Oq I .K. Cert NR it��t •i.i •+•:_
ru a 1 . •
LII ••.
Vy6 VI; ___ _... .s.a. •
i s • �sI I� '
P y ' • I � r a � e '� � :
L=END
multz1.
w -
!t L Y
To• Ate.
oo��•
oft:
Zj`, 8. 7.40 .SArvo toes
zoo J646 S�.
- - - - - -- -- - - -- ��y_/90_
TD: . fleC,
• G, Z3 8 Z40xAea
S�uo�uoc,C, ST
��IAvE �3'i�tivED TJ�r�' �,Zt�S Fae. Tit, yrCo�/�
Amos ervi s ./r is ..)or v cc�.e c.y oxJ
I-Me ",T&e �, This..P,eo
LIiVICtSC/AC. ,e3�/E 7a ;We 0,&4nj rVno j OF 7f�L
cow 70 Sc ?crier cav AJ f"V 7:9ed: AA%74C iM.vr Dors
"heemJ M O F r'sF, e orws
9a,* zErBm STTt�
23ae7X45. "S/46 " Coo= Z3 G �Ssjwo�c coat.
AWL) yrs r*oszsAg sr
pgr-e rAvs 04VE a*44 of 4s
A dwrCA27' of Aeiv tc y i,4j eveop. 3.9e4co
yi9�.OS. l��us�cci�-T7o� c v cors AJV& A4Z., ,y
'I%SIAW r S/OG
w TSE Sr cr t"*'400r.- #CE.vr
Gov i�lsS p'�9ei�y .94�i9'y PlAoo? *jaa ?cM)s-
------N :i
AC= OF. fare Ao1d♦9c$r A�+D
Some. 1.� VZ4�C4%
2 /ry
Ti/E �,�.os♦ny Or ���4�t Ic0�2,. 1tl/S
)OAAO%=!?- is Aeez wr Cid Ta mope 4*m&,eT.
AU Zwp*w )i9T7*AJ OF 74AAtP A!-co•e P4-4AAS
YV.2 TWS NFW Nin CA.) Z36 f Z¢o
s qP,adrie coCX., Sf oc,,, 404.6 Y. G'o,vvjrweV& 1
OF Lot'r' m AF60/>,.
/S ,G;'Si4NCO P*Aw TI4*,=*Vo oJrAA r Eirf,Eje,
Lo Pr' aje oAxH*ee*#V 77/E OrvNSoCS
Imory NOTG#. Ars / vpw s 7v /sAPP�1__ 11/E�CAL/l�
/3 MOW /N SLO jo . 'SrST "A4Z W S4AAM
aA&JAozA oWL r&ia Zz4k y eey7cs iN GA,J
iF iT
�. ?tl�q�► �Tt�E S�i'fAiJ TlGS OF it!/}ir1��1 RavMS�
PAC ,DDS/i'Y C-kG.aff;" r&E /uMp!T OF
Xpe
�. OvE.c�cam, /L��i�/So2.�ro10� /•fi�i4cT
S00AV4L C 57bA?w y ,vtv ffct,.w4l4s DoEs NpT
c1*4&RAt7 44PAr��4.�tlEiCfrZo_RwQ.._
/r- >7 OwN S vu EO fi�S, l iy! .ssyAL6
77/Cy W owee.DTa?&jp .f, gj-ec - -
_._.__F_�ie_?�+_�P�s_T l..O.___y.-EPR s o.� so_�+�► 7� -- -----
See Afoo/as TltAs' �IS�O fa_ �E.. _ i�JT$d 4GT
?Wawor osoo NY. ,'roircLr , . � -_t. •,p__�.vr ic.�ofs,
INCocO /�vsrsL�s Ai�O *e4A_ W . *!♦!x _
8 ST. f S iAijAr tcXm., Srf 4 z orn e.
�BSO'tJTL�� C sjiudi ta.Q®S AOS. NOT ff�G/0
4Dti2 JeAAs& CF
ac ,ue�u co. rs�tcrcr�o,.J
L./#coo S
Si .jot. c rY t�.uirs
acu 4ew Z
D�-v�Lu�►4.� ,��i�a�� �iic T 4�i�/LL Jci��vf�
AWAJ ?Arm'
OJ CWR. SCAU E . CA: fit;61*wAT4e
Tl�i9,c�. yc�
�.vL
7
ya/4
5
Helen J. Weathers
2076 Cypress Street
SLO, CA 93401
April 16, 1990
Architectural Review Commission
City of SLO
Dear Commissioners:
I am 79 years old, and due to illness will be unable to attend the
meeting tonight. I have lived in my house for many many years, and
strongly object to the addition of 7 apartments at 236, 238 and 240
Sandercock Street. Due to the water shortage, no additional units
should be built.
Sincerely,
Helen J. Weathers
1, )
y
.1n'. w M1•
tiTfsa%7.•�.
C � pry*�•,,
r,
^. OT� I�L�-" � � � � �
\\
��/
�'�
��. �'
�� � � pzn� � .z6 6 S���c.�
.3 / f'
�► _ ./J � �;��
/ �
_. .
-- � - - ,�
T G �7�L C
290
O
11L4
,
/ D°- la.
� y
51a
5e;O
draft ARC Minutes
5-14-90
6. ARC 90-12: 236, 238, 240 Sandercock Street; add apartments to rear of
existing houses on three adjacent sites; R-2 zone; final approval.
Commr. Phillips stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission find the four buildings at the rear of the lots to be of no significant
aesthetic, cultural, or historical value, and approve their demolition and grant final
approval with item to return to staff or the commission.
Barry Williams, representative, responded to the staff report and explained the project
changes. He responded to points raised in the staff report.
Several letters from residents of the neighborhood were read into the record.
Rod Charter, neighbor, was concerned with the lack of parking for this number of
units.
Hud Tatus, neighbor, was concerned with fences, trash trucks going to the rear of the
property, and the back-out areas that were needed.
Joe Sullivan, 221 Sandercock, felt the project was too dense and felt the project had
not changed significantly since the last meeting. He felt the project would be rented
to students:
Kathleen Ruiza, neighbor, was concerned with privacy.
David Ruiza, 2026 Beebee, was opposed to the project because of privacy impacts.
Kurt Vandewalle, applicant, described the discussions he had with the neighbors and
said it was his intent to target the units for young couples as tenants.
Corium. Gates felt the project was too dense and too drastic a change at this
location. She felt additional trees were needed at the rear of.236 Sandercock for
privacy screening.
Commr. Cooper felt the applicants could develop the project on a lot-by-lot basis but
he preferred using a master plan approach. He agreed with staff on the need to
remove the demising walls in the existing units.. He supported granting final approval
given previous commission actions on other R-2 projects and staffs recommendations.
Commr. Chatham was still concerned with density but agreed with Commr. Cooper
that his is consistent with other R-2 projects the commission had approved elsewhere.
J
ARC Minutes
U May 14, 1990
Page 2
Commr. Underwood agreed with Commrs. Chatham and Cooper, however, he felt the
project was too dense and too tall. Nevertheless, he felt the exteriors were attractive
and supported final approval.
Commr. Morris felt the neighbors had raised "planning" issues which were important
but difficult for the ARC to address since they were not in the commission's purview
(ie., density). He felt the project was nice looking but that a color or texture change
in the driveway was needed. He-suggested using a 3-foot fence'along the easterly
property line at 240 Sandercock to avoid shading the existing rose bushes. He
supported the project with staffs recommended conditions.
Commr. Cooper moved to find that the four buildings at the rear of the lots to be of
no significant aesthetic, cultural, or historical value and approved their demolition and
to grant final approval, including colors, to the above project subject to the following
items returning to staff for approval:
1. Demising walls in existing units shall be removed.
2. Entries to driveways shall be of a textured or stamped concrete.
• 3. The fence on the east property line of 240 Sandercock shall be 3-feet high and
the retaining wall in front of 238 Sandercock shall be screened with
landscaping.
4. large trees (Tristania Conferta or Melanleuca Quinquenervia) shall be planted
at the rear east and west property lines (at 236 and 240 Sandercock) to
prevent overlook into neighboring yards.
5. The sidewalk at the front of 240 Sandercock, between the front of the house
and the parking area, shall be simplified to produce a straighter access.
6. The existing "studio apartment" at 238 Sandercock shall be modified to meet
the definition, or one of the one-bedroom apartments shall be changed to a
studio apartment
7. The windows on the west elevation of new unit at 236 Sandercock be modified
to avoid overlook
Commr. Underwood seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Underwood, Chatham
NOES: Gates, Morris
ABSENT: Bradford, Phillips
ARC Minutes
May 14, 1990
Page 3
The motion passes.
Commr. Phillips returned to the meeting.
5 ,-3b
TE ffEe
*Denotes action by Lead Person
/ J/C Respond I
'7f�J E ,27
,<L :17-7 J �rrl/4-
12 L T7
�xilri^"/l ? STzI'y
'/lam /%"�-� J'i•.
�✓G S /}7c
77e/ G'/O L' �s C
i:7-f
S'G/_''i1� ,S Si v .ice i i✓ 777`Tf
/ ivFc• A-5
C�7f G'oRlr•
4 -4
� f.
26
y/c (/ 13- Z J
Jv
L
;:Fj
CITY COUNCIL
A% L..1S 0E:SPO, CA
I I/N A r W
�A
... ...... � �j` ice_ \ V? ��.•�CS %
HICSH •••• STREE
axw t-:-2 ,,n d14
_,9,41 E^(.o)
OT
h� II~J!L) L. I � � I i l••Iu I.-J I I iI_ !
1 � •u I
�— u
w - ° 1=� w -
L.1,I L
< I O a
S.ANDERCOCK STREE
�.vz� o )L4 L
7x,.211 3 :'•'.:=t '`i; xSI.3-'1 :[•: z/.T '�'
J o .1
CJ O ; LlF-I 0 Oi �'
w01
a
a
lu
2� , }
i. w a
. 4
,. ;p Ui . ; � : q o 0
za 240
Is :� :•e 11
;.1w ==aa =,:•. �H
eUNA TREET
•+
s.
I ZOl LS 229 715A.e z.l x..ae 231 2.1 211 zle.-) So! 715 5/9 323
_J
y /1)M-
Voort .z,e>-..
.e•.. S"j I vise I ^
,. 7: LEl
o
r
• ewe 3 I i �7� newt
twow �
.a.. ,r xw >:> x•a 254 .. 30t 110
ARC APPROVED PROJECTS
- In the vicinity of 236-40 Sandercock
- Last 16 months submissions to ARC
- All are to add units to existing house
sites
Location Zone Stories 30' Bldg. Comments
Coverage
89-128 F-2 2 24% Add 2 studios
2105 Beebee
89-25 R-2 2 30% Add 2 studios w/loft (minor
2103 Johnson and incinental
88-174 R-2 2 22% Add (2) studios & (1)
491 Branch 1 Bedroom w/den 956 Sq.Ft
' Existing 1Bd.w/den 899 sq.ft
87-98 R-2 2 22% Add (2) studios & (1)
517 Branch 1 Bedroom 550 sq.ft.
Existing 1Bd.w/den 914 sq.ft
83-101 R-2 2 28% Add (2) studios
2125-23 Beebee
89-08 R-2 2 26% Add (2) 1 Bedroom 672 sq.ft.
1034 George
89-33 R-2 2 32% Add (2) studios w/loft
462 Islay
89-89 R-2 2 25% Add (2) studios w/loft
1327 Pacific
89-56 R-2 2 33% Add (1) 1 Bedroom 755 sq.ft.
772 Mill
88-223 R-2 2 31% 2 Lots -Add (5) 856 sq.ft
467-71 Branch 1 Bd w/den 885 "
968 "
998 "
98
88-117 R-2 2 24% Add (2) 1 bedroom 782 sq.ft.
523 Branch
*236 R-2 2 23% Add (2) 1 bedroom 904 5q.-ft.
Sandercock
*238 R-2 2 26% Add (1) studio & (1) 1
Sandercock Bedroom 915 3q-ft.
*240 R-2 2 26% Add (1) studio & (2) 1
Sandercock Bedroom 904 sq.ft:
R c r
E
VED:
TO : San Luis ObisDo City Council JUN 9 1990,
C'T'CLERK
FROM : Concerned resident , 221 Sanders De=as acLan by Lead Pty�z,:)
6JIS OBISPO,CA ;�wpond by.
Regarding the issue of development at 236 238
M�4,$A2.11 0
I
Sandercock , I request that this letter be read into _ rd
in its entirety, as I am unable to attend . Thus , out esne t
`or the councils , time , I will attempt to be brief a
A a
point .
tar
After
attending two meetings of the Architectural Review
�`Ommission regarding this matter , it is very clear.' that the
major orabiem with this development is the size , scope and magni-
tude of this oroject . In a word, it is too big! This opinion was
directly corroborated in statements by a majority of the ARC and
reflected almost unanimously by the reaction of neighboring
residents . There seems to be confusion about whether the question
of downsizing a project is appropriate for ARC review (it would
certainly seem implicit that it is) or an issue of zoning and
planning . Regardless , the neighbors who will be most directly
af' ected are understandably not as knowledgeable of these pol-
itical procedures as professional staff and must seek redress
where they may.
So , back to the ARC. Commissioners Gates and Bradford strong-
ly oppose this projects , proposed configuration as "grossly
overbuilt" and incompatible with the neighborhood flavor and
pattern. In fact, Commissioner Bradford , in a strongly worded
statement , said that she ,did not wish to be a party to,, this
kind of overbuilding.
Commissioners Chatham, Underwood , and Morris all expressed
serious reservations about the size of the project and agreed to
-.-ith much visible reluctance. In fact , in the words
--hai.,-Person Morris , the most compelling argument for approval
was that it " is consistent with the many mistakes we ' ve made in
thf:- past " as a result of R-2 zoning . This logic is lunacy. At
point do we begin to address these "mistakes" and learn from
thc! past? Here and now is as good a time and place as any.
To be sure , Chairperson Morris did say that he felt it was
.,n "attractive" project , but this is certainly a debatable conclus-
I have se(-an look outsized to the extrr-rie and
Z
have a decidedly clone-like quality. While I realize that economies
of scale dictate duplication of design , (for the developers ' max-
imum profit , that is) it is incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood of largely single-story, architecturally distinct
homes . In a world of increasingly numbing uniformity, this neigh-
borhood stands.- as one of the few remaining areas in San Luis Obispo
with design individuality. It should remain so.
Which brings us to Commissioner Cooper , who seems to be leading
the charge for this development on the ARC (he makes all the motions ) .
In a recent (June 7th) article. in the Teligram Tribune, he makes an
impassioned plea on behalf of his own Peach St. neighborhood which
echoes exactly my own concerns . I say to Mr . Cooper that he should
practice what he preaches. Anyway, this hardly stands as a zinging
endorsement from the ARC for this project , yet the fact remains
that they officially approved it . Curious indeed !
Leaving aside the aesthetic considerations, a more practical
problem with this project is its ' density and impact on *the neigh-
borhood . While it may comply with the letter of zoning requirements,
it certainly violates the spirit.. All of the extra "sun-rooms" and
"computer rooms" tacked onto these one bedroom units can and will
be converted into extra bedrooms, increasing beyond intent the
occupancy levels of these units . The crowding, congestion, noise
and parking problems which will result from this overpopulation
are obvious. The developer has told me that these units are de-
fine�d as "luxury apartments" and as such she will seek professional
couples and not students as tenants . There are two flaws in this
argument . By the developers ' own admission this project is designed
for a relatively quick turnaround sale (as :were their other recent
projects which have already been sold ) . Are we to rely on the hope
that the next owner will be as obviously scrupulous as she?
Secondly, this is not a "luxury" neighborhood and the residents are
quite satisfied that it isn ' t. If the developers need to build
seven large Luxury units to ensure the quick profits they seek,
then they made a poor business decision to purchase the property
at the price that they did and the neighborhood should not he ex-
pected to suffer so that they may recoup.
11hich brings me to my final point- and that is the questionable
- 3
seventh unit. At the first ARC meeting I attended , this seventh
unit was negotiated away as a compromise principle to gain support
for 'the project as a whole from Commissioners Bradford and Gates.
At the next meeting it mysteriously reappeared without dissent .
This calls into question the integrity and objectivity of the ARC
as the appearance is one of backsliding due to developer pressure .
In conclusion , I and other neighborhood residents I have
spoken with, feel that this project is overbuilt , incompatible
with the neighborhood, and driven by the desire for maximum profit
potential at the expense of the neighborhoods , long-standing and
existing quality of Life. We urge that it be downscaled consider-
ably (preferably to one-story) and respectfully request that the
council return it to the drawing board for refiguring.
Sincerely,
Joe- Sullivan
2.21 Sandercock
San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
��I�IIIIIInIIIIIIII����� �IIIIIIIIIIIt — I • ' g � S
CItyOf SA l'1 U
Is
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
tv I Cad P-Son 1
19 June 1990
�e/;
�erk-org.
TO: Council members
indler
FROM: Judy -Lautner 40„OA* 5
SUBJECT: Sandercock apartments
I received a telephone call this morning from Greg Bryant, who
lives at 2044 Beebee Street. Mr. Bryant previously testified
against the project at 236, 238, and 240 Sandercock. The council
will be considering an appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's approval of that project tonight. Mr. Bryant called
to say he wants councilmembers to know that he still opposes the.
project.
J” 1 9 14Q11
SAN CIT*(CLERK
LUIS OBISPO,CA