HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/1990, 6 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A NEW HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE, AT 131 MEETING DATE:
City O� SdT1 LUIS OBISpO -7-90
Oftion COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, unity Development Director; Prepared
By: Jeff Ho .
`o/ Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of ah Architectural Review Commission action
denying a new house on a sensitive site, at 1314 Pismo
Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
After considering public testimony, ARC comments, and the staff
report, adopt a resolution to uphold or deny the appeal subject to
the appropriate findings and conditions.
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 1990 the Council determined that City purchase of
this site was not needed, and directed staff to secure easements
for public access, open space, and creek maintenance with any
future development approvals. On March 2nd, the Hearing Officer
approved Variance 1471 allowing a reduced street yard (minutes
attached) . Variance conditions included an irrevocable offer to
dedicate public access, open space and creek maintenance easements.
At its May 14th meeting, the Architectural Review Commission
directed the appellant to further reduce the house's lot coverage
and size; to provide a 10-foot setback along the northeast
sideyard; and to provide more landscaping along the top of the San
Luis Obispo Creek bank between the house and Johnson Avenue. Plans
were changed as directed, and were submitted for the Commission's
June 4th meeting. i
I
On June 4th the Commission denied the appellants' plans for a new
house on a sensitive site. The item had been continued from the
commission's May 14th, April 2nd, and March 15th meetings. The
appellants' ask that the Council uphold the appeal and .approve
final architectural review plans for their house.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If Council upholds the appeal, the appellant will be able to
proceed with the building permit application and plancheck. If the
Council denies the appeal and upholds the ARC's action, the
appellants' project cannot proceed as submitted. They would need
to redesign the project and submit a new planning application, or
find another house site.
DATA SUMMARY
Property Owners/Appellants: Don and Renee Wright
Representative: Randy Dettmer
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium-density Residential
�► i�i�►��p�dq���� city of San lues osIspo
60126 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
2
Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt (CEQA Section 15303)
Site Description: The site is irregularly shaped, and covers
about 12, 000 square feet (.28 acre) . Most of the lot's area is
within the top of banks of San Luis Obispo Creek and is
undevelopable. The vacant site is bordered by houses on the
northeast side, and across the creek to the northwest; and has
frontage on Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street. The developable,
northeast portion of the site is level and covers about 4200 square
feet.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The appellants want to build a two-story, 1744 square foot house
on a creekside lot which they own. Architectural review is
required since this has been designated as a sensitive site due to
its creekside location and unusual shape. The house covers about
13 percent of the site's total area, including a one-car garage
(264 square feet) plus a carport. A rear yard of about 1000 square
feet is shown between the house and the top of San Luis Obispo \
creek bank. The house is set back a minimum of 8 feet from the top
of creek bank; however most of the house would be setback at least
10 feet from top of bank.
Architectural Review Commissionis Action
At its June 4th hearing, the commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the
house (Commrs. Chatham and Underwood voted no; Commr. Phillips
absent) , based on findings that the house was inconsistent with its
environmental setting, and incompatible with the neighborhood
(minutes attached) . A previous motion to grant final approval had
failed on a split vote. Commissioners noted that changes had been
made to reduce the house's scale and improve compatibility; however
several commissioners continued to have concerns with size of the
house, and its closeness to the street and top of creek bank. As
with previous meetings on this item, several neighbors spoke in
opposition.
Basis For Appeal
The appellants explain the appeal in the attached letter. They
cite efforts to comply with staff and. ARC direction, and to meet
neighbors' concerns with views, setbacks; and the house's scale and
design. They also note that the house has been downsized several
times, and that it meets Zoning Regulations. The appellants feel
that based on ARC and neighbor comments, further design studies
would not be fruitful, and that if the house size was further
reduced, it would not be practical to build.
G��
city of San lUS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT .
3
Project Changes
In the most recent plans, the house was modified by: 1) shifting
it southwest two feet to provide a greater sideyard setback and
address concerns with visual impact, privacy, and building
setbacks; 2) reducing the floor area (not including garage) from
1916 to 1744 sq. ft. ; 3) redistributing the second story toward
the center of the house; 4) eliminating the exterior stairs; and
by 4) reducing the house's overall length from 70.5 feet to 67
feet. Two White Alders have also been added along the top of the
creek bank to provide additional screening from Johnson Avenue.
Staff Analysis
The project meets Zoning Regulations for density, lot coverage,
side yard setback, building height, and parking; and it complies
with Variance 1471 (attached) . Plans reviewed by the ARC on June
4th appear to respond to previous ARC direction, and adequately
address concerns with massing and setbacks.
By shifting additional building mass over the first floor living
room and reducing the house's length, the house's street profile
is smaller and more compact than in previous designs. Rooflines
and window treatment are simple, attractive, and consistent, and
appear more compatible with the neighborhood than previous designs..
The proposed design represents a compromise between meeting floor
area needs for single-family housing, while still being sensitive
to site constraints and neighborhood character.
Design/Compatibility Factors
When reviewing development on sensitive sites, the city's prima
focus has been project "fit" and visual impact. Privacy screening
open space, and architectural compatibility are also important
concerns. With single family houses, the - ARC has typically
encouraged a wide range of design, consistent with neighborhoods'
overall range of building scale, materials, and placement.
1. Project Fit: How well the project's site layout works in
terms of access; yard space; lot coverage; orientation for
solar collection and views; creek preservation; setbacks and
relationship to adjacent houses.
A. The site area is about 1/4 acre, but its actual buildable
area is only about 4,200 square feet -- or 38%. This is
consistent with City standards which allow a maximum lot
coverage of So% in the R-2 zone.
B. The remaining portion of the lot, about 8,200 sq. ft. ,
would be preserved as open space through dedication of
G•3
6"1���!���p1 �I�Ilil city of san tins oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
4
an open space easement to the City. No development would
occur on or within the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek..
C. If this lot were required to meet the usual zoning and
creek setback requirements, its developable area would
be reduced to 420 square feet. The City's creek
preservation policy strongly encourages, but does not
mandate, a 20-foot building setback from top of creek
bank (policies attached) . The policies allow exceptions
where the lot is small, and reasonable development
without some exception would be impossible.
D. The house has been sited to preserve neighbor's solar
access, privacy, and creek views.
E. Zoning Regulations allow up to a three-bedroom house on
this site, and a three-bedroom house is proposed (allowed
density = 1.82 density units; 1..5 density units
proposed) . Zoning Regulations allow up to 12 density
units per acre in this zone, depending on the size and
average cross-slope of the lot.
Where sites do not slope uniformly, as is the case here,
the code says that average cross-slope is to be
determined by the City Engineer, based on a proportional
weighting of the cross-slopes of uniformly sloping sub-
areas. Density calculations are attached.
2. Architectural Character/Compatibility: At about 2000 sq. ft. ,
including garage, the house would be larger than most other
houses in this block of Pismo, but modest in size when
compared with many new houses being built in the city. The
house's design, materials, and colors appear compatible with
neighborhood's architectural character.
3. visual Impact: The house's main visual impact would be from
Johnson Avenue. The site's open, riparian character (the
level area has been used in the past as an overflow parking
lot for the neighborhood) would be partially obscured by the
house. However a 600 sq. ft. level area close to Johnson
would remain open, with California native landscaping and a
public creek access trail adjacent to the Johnson Street
bridge. All existing trees onsite are to be preserved.
Since the adjacent house is built at the property line, the
Wright's propose a ten-foot sideyard to provide the typical
spacing between houses in an R-2 zone. A 7-foot street yard
is allowed by the variance. When the sidewalk and parkway are
considered, the house would be set back about seventeen feet
from the street, at its closest point. Across the street, a
G-
� '► ��wllllllillP°�"�9nllll C1_W Or San Luis OBispO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
5
portion of an older house is setback one foot from the street
property line. Other houses in the block are setback 2.0 feet
or more.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "A", denying the appeal
and upholding the ARC's action subject to the recommended
findings.
2. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "B", upholding the appeal
and approving the project subject to the recommended findings
and conditions.
3. Continue the item with direction to staff or the appellant.
4. Refer the item back to the ARC with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
After considering public testimony, ARC comments, and the staff
report, adopt a resolution to uphold or deny the appeal subject to
the appropriate findings and conditions.
Attachments:
-Draft Resolutions
-Appellant's Letter
-Vicinity Map
-ARC Minutes
-Density Calculations
-Administrative Creek Policies
-Neighbor letters and petitions
-Variance 1471
-Administrative Hearing Minutes
jh/d/wright.wp
S�
0
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
DENYING A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE AT 1314 PISMO STREET,
(ARC 89-143) .
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 appellants' application and
plans for architectural review for a new house at 1314 Pismo Street
(ARC 89-143) , the appellants' statements, the Architecture Review
OCommission's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon,
makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the prevailing
neighborhood character in terms of building scale,
setbacks, and architectural design.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with its
environmental setting, since it does not comply with the
City's creek preservation policies which encourage a 20-
foot setback from top of creek bank to adjacent structures.
3. The proposed use is categorically exempt from environmental
review under the City Environmental Guidelines and the
California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303.
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 , 1990.
Mayor
.ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Offic r
t to ney
Community Devel went Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN IULS OBISFU
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A NEW HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE AT 1314 PISMO STREET,
- (ARC 89-143) .
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 appellants' plans and
applications for architectural review for a new house at 1314 Pismo
Street (ARC 89-143) the appellants' statements, and the
Architectural Review Commission's action, . staff recommendations
and reports thereon, hereby upholds the appeal and makes the
following finding:
1. The proposed project use will be compatible with adjacent
residences and with the neighborhood in terms of
architectural scale, massing, and design;
2. The proposed project is consistent with its environmental
setting in that it includes the following features to
minimize impacts to the creek and adjacent lots:
A. The street yard has been reduced to seven feet to
provide at least an eight-foot setback from the top
of creek bank.
B. A 10-foot side yard is provided where five feet
would normally be required.
G$
C. The applicant has offered to grant an irrevocable
offer to dedicate an open space easement over
approximately three-fourths of the lots' total area
to preserve the creek in its natural state.
D. The house design has been modified by reducing
overall floor area, lot coverage, and by shifting
building mass to reduce its apparent size,
consistent with other nearby structures.
SECTION 2. Project Approval. Plans dated May 4, 1990 for
the new house at 1314 Pismo Street are hereby approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted
for staff approval, and shall meet the City's Landscape
Standards for Water Conservation.
2. The carport shall be screened from Johnson Avenue with a
4 - 6 foot tall landscape planting, to the approval of the
Community Development Department staff.
3. All existing trees on-site shall be preserved and safety
pruned, to the approval of the City Arborist
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 , 1990.
i• 9
O Staff Report
Page 3
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
CvI
t tra ve Off,*ter '
o ey
Community Deve op ent Director
city
-�
O
sAn tui OBISPO 3 u ,
x• � � 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 THP ArihitPe-r„ra7 RPvPiw r'nnniaainn rendered
on June 4. 1990 which decision consisted of the fallowing (i.e..
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
Denial of approval, based on the finding that the project was
incompatible with the environmental setting and the neighborhood.
SEE ATTACH® LE=
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Ken Bruce on June 5. 1990
Appellant:
Don and Renee Wright, owners
Name/Title
Randy Dettmer, AIA
E
Representative
JUIN 1 1'"0;1 i4- —
75 Higuera St. Suite 220, SLA
Address
Ct7'CLERK
BART LU!S MEPC,CA
544 7.858
Phone
��JJ is Original for City Clerk
�', Copy to City Attorney
C lendare/d for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
f Copy to the following dekartment(s) :,L
`/ �. �n�9:5. e�nrnU N.� td G"elcp Trn Q..✓ -YI�e�T7Jr
City Ctkrk _T
DeWMACNeCture.Construction &Interior Design
J icc_ Street
Ca!�;C'na 93401
June 12. 1990
Pam Voges, Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
RE: 1314 Pismo Street
ARC 89-143
"New House an sensitive site"
Dear Pam,
Please be advised that Don and Renee Wright, owners of the above
listed propertys are hereby appealing to the City Council, the
Architectural Review Ceomission denial of approval, issued on June
4. 1990 for the above referenced project.
The subject property was purchased by Don and Renee Wright for the
• purpose of building their own home, on Nov. 8, 1989. Applications
for architectural review and a street yard setback variance were
filed on Nov. 30, 1989. Application processing was continued and
delayed due to a lack of response from City departments and a
oversight by staff to consider City Purchase.-of the property for a
ItrailheadR for a future trails plan. Ultimate City Council action
on Feb. 2. 1990 was to decline purchase and to determine that
Private development was appropriate. A setback variance was granted
with restrictions and conditions of approval on March 2, 19909 at
Which time, the property was designated a sensitive site requiring
architectural review.
The project was reviewed by the A.R.C. and continued with direction
for changes on March S, and April 2. 1990. I was retained by the
Wright's to provide archectural design services on April 3, 1990.
The A.R.C. continued the project again with specific direction on
May 14. 1990, and then denied the project on June 4. 1990.
This has been a six month process so far.
The applicant has consistantly addressed and complied with all City
concerns and requirements and the project has consistantly received
staff support with recommendations for approval. Numerous meetings
have been held with neighbors to address commmity concerns. The
project has received written and public testimony in support, by at
least five neighbors. The project meets all City
zoning
n requirements.
Wright Appeal
Page 2.
The project has undergone significant revisions four times with a
reduction in size of 40% to meet neighborhood concerns and A.R.C.
direction.
Following the A.R.C. meeting of May 14th, the project was redesigned
again to camply precisely with clear direction from the commission,
including a further reduction of size which was not specifically
asked for. With these A.R.C. concerns addressed, the project went
to the June 4th meeting with a staff recommendation for final
approval. Instead of granting final approval, the commission
brought up brand new ideas with even more suggestiotis . to further
change the project. It has became clear that the A.R.C. does not
support any development on this property except that of a structue
so small as to be impractical.
After six months of meetings, delays, and constant revision, it is
our opinion that the project adequately* addresses staff and
neighborhood concerns, is appropriately scaled, and deserves to be
approved.
Considering the above project history and with consideration of the
City's goals for encouraging affordable housing and infill
development, we feel the City Council has ho choice, but to uphold
this appeal.
Sincerely,
tyDet r, AIA
'r
° r PF
00
■ \
.w A
Q GSI'�•
07 r
e '
Q rasdi
1. � �� _ :: + � ?► 1' �• ��_ .w.,, -�_�\
40
1p SO
ti ••• , •/•
°
CI o -ty OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post.Office Box 8100 an Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
June 8, 1990
Mr. Don Wright
1639 Phillips Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: ARC 89-143: 1314 Pismo Street
New house on sensitive site
Dear Don:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 4 ,
1990, denied the above project based on the finding that the
project was incompatible with the environmental setting and the
neighborhood.
Surplus plans for this project may be picked up at the Community
Development Department. Plans not claimed within thirty days
will be discarded.
The City Clerk has received your appeal of the commission's
decision and has been tentatively scheduled for the July 3rd City
Council meeting. This date, however, should be verified with the
City Clerk's office.
Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are
available.
Please contact Jeff Hook at 549-7176 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
en Bruce
Senior Planner
cc: Randy Dettmer ,
-/r
ARC Minutes
June 4, 1990
Page 10
Commr. Morris suggested ding higher planting (20 to 25 feet) along the northerly
property line, noting that
:roposed oleanders would not grow enough. He felt that
Phase I should consist oonstruction of Building C with retention of the two houses
that were remaining, anhat .Phase 2 include construction of Buildings A and B.
Commr. Cooper moved to find that the accessory buildings located behind the three
main structures are without chitectural, historical, or aesthetic significance and
approved their demolition and ted final approval to the project in two phases
with the provision of higher trees al the northerly property line (phase 1), frosted
corridor windows on the north elevation, vised window proportions to be resolved by
staff and that all finished landscaping (ph 'e 2) be bonded for to assure installation.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Bradford. Chat Cooper, Bradford, Gates, Underwood, Morris
NOES- .None
ABSENT: Phillips
The motion asses.
G
5. ARC 89-143: 1314 Pismo Street; new house on sensitive site;- R•2 zone; final
review.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final
approval subject. to the conditions listed,in the staff report
Randy Dettmer, architect, responded to the staff report and indicated the square
footage of the house had been reduced by 200 square feet He presented a rendering
which showed the landscaping backdrop.
Commr. Cooper was concerned with the location of the children's bedrooms and felt
they should be moved farther back from the street. Randy Dettmer responded by
explaining that stepping of the first story of the house was important to softening the
street elevation.
Commr. Bradford was concerned with how exiting from the rear of the housewould
work., She was also concerned with how two of the trees proposed to be retained
would be affected by proposed development
O
ARC Minutes
June 4, 1990
Page 11
Robert Lewin, neighbor, was concerned with the proposed house encroaching into the
creek area and the massiveness of the building.
Evelyn Talmage, 1309 Pismo, indicated she owned several properties on the block.
She presented a collage of photographs depicting the neighborhood. She felt the
reduced house was still too massive.
Chuck Diehl, 1326 Pacific, felt the main issue was one of scale and thought the house
was too big. He discussed the fact that the applicant was a city employee. He felt
the project was ill-conceived and should be denied.
Eugene Miller, 1325 Pacific, indicated he also owned property on Pismo Street and
thought the house was too big for the site.
Marshall Ochylsid, landscape architect-, felt the bulk and mass of the house had been
adequately reduced. He did not like the personal attacks on the applicant and felt he
was not getting any special privileges.
Randy Dettmer expressed frustration with the process and was concerned with the
commission's direction on the project.
Commr. Underwood felt the project was still massive, but the scale had improved.
He thought the dark colors would make it more recessive and supported the project.
Commr. Gates was concerned with the streetscape and felt it was too close to the .
back of the sidewalk and did not ft into the neighborhood.
Commr. Bradford felt the project should have originally been denied and that too
many exceptions had been granted. She felt the house was too massive and not
compatible with the neighborhood.
Commr. Chatham felt the changes to the house's mass and scale had addressed his
concerns. He did not feel that the project was inconsistent with the neighborhood
and supported the revised proposal.
Commr. Cooper was concerned with the creek and setbacks of the house. He
suggested moving the children's bedrooms further back from the street to allow for
more landscaping in the street yard. He wanted the upper-story wall planes treated
as dormers to reduce the scale of the streetscape elevation. He supported a
continuance.
Commr. Morris felt the architect and applicant had produced a project that serves
both the applicant's and neighborhood's needs. He supported the project.
X-17
C ARC Minutes
June 4, 1990
Page 12
Commr. Chatham moved to grant final approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted for staff approval, and
shall meet the City's Landscape Standards for Water Conservation.
2. The carport shall be screened from Johnson Avenue with a 4 - 6 foot tall
landscape' planting, to the approval of Community Development Department
staff.
3. All existing trees on-site shall be preserved and safety pruned, to the approval
of the City Arborist.
Commr. Underwood seconded the motion.
AYES: Chatham, Underwood, Morris
NOES: Bradford, Gates, Cooper
ABSENT: Phillips
The motion fails.
The commission discussed the possibility of a continuance with the applicant. Randy
Dettmer made it clear that another continuance was not acceptable to the applicant.
Commr. Bradford moved to deny the project based on the finding that the project
was incompatible with the environmental setting and the neighborhood.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Bradford, Cooper, Gates, Morris
NOES: Chatham, Underwood
ABSENT. Phillips
The motion passes. I
Commr. Morris indicated he supported the motion for denial because of the voting
deadlock and in light of the applicant's preference, but was not opposed to the
project.
N
G'-/8
,'E L•� � • ?�j..j it t r.: /' , wemme ,�i' I.
go
- • � n • � 1 � 1 � _ •y
• " is S
do
• �L� i i� it , � � T „.i �• t I ��
;!` t J 1
•,• it Si ,' i - Vol
it •' � y� .•.
Ago
EE r IL
to
Sho
• 4 ++
\ ►ISMO STREET
sit
5 -i 41
Vol
0
-4 z s • ,............_.._. _.._
x SO
"mop Z IY` O;► ,
n ;_ ;tib'• �;:: EXHIBIT A
z zona ! s•
r 0 -4 • • '• I ,Z1\
p x Z i ��f �i '" Y a.
i
11iIII c O S WIS OBISPO
pet
-.If 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93403.8100
MEMORANDUM
To: Files: V1471, ARC 89-143
From: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
Date: April 25, 1990
Subject: Density Calculation for 1314 Pismo Street
==ssss==cases==sascsasatss=saass=ssscssss
Allowable residential density is based on Section 17.16.010 of the city's Zoning Regulations.
Average cross-slope, as calculated by the City Engineer, is the key factor in determining
allowable density on sloping sites. Where a site does not slope uniformly, as is the case here,
the code says that average cross-slope is determined by proportional weighting of the cross
slopes of uniformly sloping areas. The City Engineer's calculation of average cross-slope
for this site is attached.
C Based on the calculated average cross-slope, allowable density on this site is as follows:
Zoning: R-2
Site Area: 6,610 square feet (excludes creek area which was also excluded from the
calculation of average cross slope)
Average cross-slope: 13.0%
Maximum Allowed Density: 12 density units per net acre
Allowed Density on this site: 6,610/43,560 X 12 = 1.82 density units.
Under the allowed density, the proposed house can have up to three bedrooms. Any
additional bedrooms would require a density exception as provided in subsection (a) of the
regulations.
c: Don Wright
Ken Bruce
Jerry Kenny
6��Q
NII
cityof sAn OBISo
�E p
'1955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Date: April 20, 1990
h1Eb10RANDUM
To: Jeff Hook, Planning Associate `I
Via: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer1`/
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
From: Mike Bertaccini, Engineering Assistant.,� i
Subject: 1314 Pismo St., determination of average cross-slope.
The City Engineer has determined that the portion of property containing the creek proper shall
not be considered when calculating the average cross-slope. On the attached ezihibit, I have
defined the creek area and those portions of the property used in determining the average cross-
slope. The following is a list of the areas used in calculating (proportional weighting) the average
cross-slope:
Area A, = 4,174 sqft @ 1.8% slope, 63.2% of property = 1.1% -
Area A7 1,092 sqft @ 8.3% slope, 16.5% of property = 1.4%
Area A3 = 840 sqft @ 76% slope, 12.7% of property 9.7%
Area A,, = 504 sqft @ 10.9% slope, 7,6% of property = 0.8%
13.0%
The total area (A,) considered equals 6,610 sgrt with an average cross-slope of 13.0%.
att. 1314 Pismo St, topo map
c: Address file
k'u—.'`7
nD/neyplsmo.wp �
C) r
D O F m j
66 i b
all
a m o
• F � � iaj a z a ah c ,
O ll- X
'03
TJ
La
10,
011
.91111110
all as
IL
It i4t
i•I `'
/ f
v
x 3 i
1 ` 1 e .
. �i la� � f'. �L �.1jj
Chapter 17.16
1.'Density"is the number of the dwelling units per net
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS acre. In the COS and R-1 zones,each dwelling counts
as one unit. In the other zones,different size dwellings
Sections: have unit values as follows:
17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions. a. Studio apartment,0.50 unit;
17.16.010 Density. b. One-bedroom dwelling,0.66 unit;
17.16.020 Yards. c. Two-bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit;
17.16.030 Coverage. d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
17.16.040 Height e. Dwelling with four or more bedroom,200 units.
17.16.050 Fences,walls and hedges.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements. 2.The following procedure shall be used to determine
17.16.070 Parking and driveway design and exceptions. the maximum development allowed on a given lot or
17.16.080 Fin protection. land area:
17.16.090 Screening of outdoor sales and storage.
17.16.100 Utility services. a.Determine the Average(Foss-slope Of the Site. 'Average
17.16.110 Satellite dish antenna. cross slope'is the ratio,expressed as a percentage of the
difference in elevation to the horizontal distance be-
tween two points on the perimeter of the area for which
17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions. slope is being determined.The line along which slope is
measure shall run essentially perpendicular to the con-
A Development of property within the city maybe sub- tours.
jeer to provisions of this code not contained in this
section or chapter, including, but not limited to, the i. Where a site does not slope uniformly,average cross
following: slope is to be determined by proportional weighting of _
the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas,as deter-
1. Fire prevention code,Chapter 15.08; mined by the city engineer.
2.Building regulations,Chapter 15.04;
3. Demolition and moving of buildings.Chapter 15.36; ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the
4.Subdivision regulations,Title 16; natural topography of the site,before grading.
5.Building setback line(plan line),Chapter 17.74;
6. Street right-of-way dedication and improvement, iii.Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be
Chapter 17.76; rounded up.
7. Excavation and grading,Chapter 17.79,
8.Architectural review commission,Chapter 248; iv.Noslope-rated density reduction is required in the C1
9.General plan amendment regulations,Chapter 17.80; OS,C-1k,C-C or PF zones.
10.Sign regulations,Chapter 15.40;
11. Condominium development and conversion rep- v.The maximum development allowed for each average
lations,Chapter 17.82; cross-slope category is as follows:
12 Flood damage prevention regulations,Chapter 17.84,
13. Downtown housing conversion permits. Chapter , TABLE 1
17.86; MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR
14.Growth management regulations,Chapter 17.88, CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES
15.Resource deficiency,Chapter 244;
16.Environmental review guidelines,adopted by coup- % Average Maximum Density
cil Resolution 3919-1979. Cross Slope (units per net acre)
B.Where provisions of this chapter conflict with provi- R-1 R-2,0 R-3 R-4
sions of other applicable laws,the more restrictive pro- C-N,C-T
vision shall prevail. (Ord. 1006- 1 (pan). 1984: prior
code-9202.5(A)) 0-15 7 12 18 24
16.20 4 6 9 12
17.16.010 Density. 21 -25 2 4 6 8
26 + 1 2 3 4
A.Determination of Allowed Development.
1336 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CJune 1, 1990
Architecture Review Committee
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, California
ATTN:Jeff Hook
SUBJECT:House on sensitive site, 1328 Pismo Street (Don,��
Agenda for June 4, 1990
Dear Chairman and Commission members:
As you recall I addressed your commission concerning this project in
support of a smaller house and asked you to represent the general wishes
of the neighborhood in your review. At this hearing I will be out of
town, but I would otherwise be present to tell you of my concerns about
not only the project but the process as well.
If you would kindly return to the position of your commission at the first
hearing,wherein Chairman Allen Cooper and you agreed that the site should
support a building between 1,200 and 1,400 square feet? Somehow that
position has been revised in subsequent meetings, although the project in
its appearance, massing and footprint has not changed significantly. The
O building still would not fit in the streetscape and would overcrowd the
limited land available to build on south of San Luis Obispo Creek.
The process has been reversed for you somehow. The variance was granted
first,with assurances that your commission would deal with how much
encroachment into the setback is appropriate. The current proposal shows
a two-story wall on the front,which will dominate the sidewalk and
street. A smaller house would have less impact with the allowed variance.
The process of determining the allowable densittyy has also been out of
synch, as you are by now probably aware. The Department of Public Works
included land across San Luis Obispo Creek that is not feasible to develop
with this project in its calculation of usable site area. This was a
critical task, and the oversight of including this unrelated land should
be corrected before the project is considered further.
This is a sensitive site because the creek is a primary city lesource.
New development along the creek should be subor inate to the presence of
the creek and its natural habitat. This project crowds the creek and the
street,so that both lose their respective resource values to the city and
the neighborhood.
It is time to take another look at what is best here from a city policy
and value standpoint and direct the applicant to bring back a responsive
proposal. A redirection here is warranted given the above facts.
• Sincerely,
�es Received. 6 -4 -90
.}�• .. ... :'! '.Wit:.�Y:' -� �
Architecture Review Commission
. May 11 , 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Commission Members,
ll feel that the sire of the proposed single
We the undersigned, sti
family dwelling (1)916 square feet, not including the garage)
of 1s a site
3 14
Pismo Street is out of scale for the buildable area of the to
sensitive lot and deserves a site sensitive house.
Thank you for your consideration,
t332- P�sr�o sT �.d.
a sem?
(.('L� .�" ;s Tn 6 s7�
(L
.o—
is2� Paca C- .
/33z
U — 1 z F/ yO ST
13�
r
cel
12 May 1990
To the Members of the Architectural Review Commission•
I have lived at 1343 Pismo Street for 6k years. I have reviewed
the final design for the Wright residence at 1300 Pismo.
Regarding building height, mass, setbacks and appearance, I find
it both attractive and acceptable.
Also, considering the public improvements involved in the
project, such as sidewalks, street trees, open-space easements
and drainage improvements at the bridge, I feel this would be a
beneficial addition to the neighborhood, especially considering
the alternatives of multiple dwellings or a vacant lot.
I fully support the plan and hope that the members of the
Architectural Review Commission will be encouraged to do the
same.
Thank you.
Sincerely, .�
6�- r
Rick Hamlin
David b Lisa Plevel
1263 Pismo St.
San Luis Obispo, CA
O
May 12, 1990
To Whom It May Concern;
In response to your letter regarding the new construction of a home at
1300 Pismo St. , we have reviewed the- plans and are familiar with the location
in question. We feel the design is very .tasteful and is in keeping with a
newer residence located at 1236 Pismo St. , which is across Johnson Ave. , and
on the same side of the street. 1236 Pismo St. is also the first home to the
left, of the subject home, as your'e facing it.. We do not feel as though this
structure would distort the ambiance of the neighborhood in regards to its
size, design or color choice. We, recognize .the fact that the home is two
stories, which we believe will become a more evident trend as housing prices
continue to soar. Even so, we noted that some of the one story homes, in the
neighborhood had roof heights that were as high or even higher than the
projected roof height on the owners' .plans.
To be quite honest with you, our view of this new structure will probably
�. be one of the most affected in the immediate area. We consider it to be a
welcome addition and possibly a deterrent to garbage dumping and transients
access to the creek. The total effect being one of a finished neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and we wish the owners good luck.
Sincerely,
David Pleve
tLisa Plevfel
O
G-�
J
May 10, 1990
Mr. Don Wright
1639 Phillips Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Wright,
I have reviewed the plans for 1300 Pismo Street with regard to height of the
house and placement of the house relative to the creek. I own the house directly
across the creek from this lot (1324 Johnson) and have lived there for 12 years. I
appreciate your efforts to lower the elevation of the roof and I now have no
objection to the design or the location of the house. I think the proposed house
would be an improvement to the neighborhood and will help to clean-up what has
been a messy vacant lot in the past.
]. Sims
ISI city, 0 sAn tuis ONSPO
T-
- 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
October 20, 1988
To: Planners
From: Mike M
Subject: Draft administrative creek policy
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be varied
from when the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent
can be met through alternative approaches.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels
should be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian
corridors to be preserved or enhanced). i
In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could idlude:
s
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie
together lined or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or
circulation, reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be
consulted before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if
there is any significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be
consulted, too.
2New structures iti,'1 dld'g parking lots should generally be setback at least
0 feet from the tori of bank. "Top of bank" means the physical top of bank
(ie: where the more steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the
terrain not cut by the water flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest most
step is the top of bank, not any intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of
bank will not be apparent; the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range
Planner should be consulted to help determine a reasonable line, considering
such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the creek, the extent of
riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
.• 6r 30
Draft Creek Policy
Page 2
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-foot line;
2. a setback line has been adopted or proposed by Public Works which
is farther from the bank,
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-foot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant
riparian corridor or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some
exception is impossible;
3. the lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of lesser
setbacks has been established on both sides of the lot along the
creek.
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director
and Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
�J
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link
in the urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access
should be required as a condition of any discretionary permit.
4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a
condition of approval of any discretionary permit.
5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as
a condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be •sensitive sites' for architectural
review purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review
should be taken in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the
guidelines above are met; if they are not met, then the project should be
referred to the ARC with a recommendation that the guidelines be followed.
J
G 3/
. . . �
city
WIS OBISPO
N - 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
March 6, 1990
Don R. Wright
1639 Phillips Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Variance Appl. V1471
1314 Pismo Street
Dear Don:
On Friday, March 2, 1990, I conducted a public hearing on your
request to allow reduced street yard setback from 20 feet to 7
feet, at the subject location.
After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request,
based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Findings i
1. There are circumstances applying to the site which do not
apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
specifically:
a. Approximately one-half (7, 005 sq. ft.) of the lot's total
area (12,392 sq. ft. ) is included within the top of banks
of San Luis Creek, and is undevelopable.
b. The site is oddly shaped, and has dual street frontages.
C. Reduction of the required street yard from 20 feet to 7
feet will allow a greater setback from the top of
creekbank than would otherwise be possible.
2. The setback reduction is consistent with prevailing
neighborhood character, in that sgtbacks for neighboring
structures on Pismo Street range from 0 to 15 feet.
3. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons living or working at the site or
in the vicinity.
conditions
1. A street yard of not less than seven feet shall be maintained.
O ,
Page 2
V1471
2. A setback of at least eight feet shall be maintained from the
top of the San Luis Creek bank.
3 . The site shall be designated as a sensitive site. Any
development shall be submitted to and approved by the
Architectural Review Commission.
4 . The property owner shall dedicate an easement to the city for
creek maintenance and public pedestrian access (including the
right for the city to make improvements and not allow
structures or vegetation removal) over San Luis Creek, as
shown in Exhibit "A", to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and Community Development Director.
5. The property owner shall install frontage improvements along
Pismo Street, consisting of 6-foot integral curb, gutter,
sidewalk, driveway ramp and street paveout, per city
standards.
6. Applicant shall submit to the city for review, approval and
recordation, a covenant guaranteeing that the house will be
used as one dwelling unit only.
Code Recuirements
1. The applicant must install street trees along Pismo Street and
Johnson Avenue frontages, to the approval of the City
Arborist. Credit may be given for existing trees that meet
city standards. Approved street tree is a 15-gallon sized
California Sycamore (Platanus Racemosa) .
2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant must provide the City
Engineer with written certification by a registered land
surveyor or civil engineer that the lowest floor elevation
complies with the Plood Damage Prevention Regulations.
3. The property owner must pay water acreage and frontage charges
prior to the issuance of building permits.
4 . Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant must combine
the site's two lots into one parcel. '
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission
within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any
person aggrieved by the decision.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not
established within one year of the date of approval or such longer
time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use
permit shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for
possible renewal. `
z-q-
Page 3
V1471
O
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hook at 549-7176.
Sincerely,
Ken Bruce
Hearing Officer
drs
cc: John Ashbaugh
P.O. Box 12206
SLO, CA 93406
O
O
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY MARCH 2, 1990
1314 Pismo Street. Variance Appl. V147.1; Request to allow reduced
street yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet;
R-2 zone; Don Wright, applicant.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant
owns the property on Pismo Street near Johnson Avenue. He noted
that this is a very unusual lot for several reasons: it covers
about 12, 000 square feet, and has a very unusual configuration;
about 3/4 of the lot is in the creek, and 1/4 of the lot (about
3 , 700 square feet) is going to be used for the building site. He
noted that design plans have been received by the city, proposing
a two-story, single-family home, about 2,300 square feet in floor
area. Because the site has so much creek area and because it is
unusually shaped and has dual street frontages, the applicant has
requested a variance to allow the house to be located closer to the
street that would normally be allowed in the R-2 zone. He
indicated that staff is recommending approval of a reduced setback
to 5 feet, explaining that a 5-foot street yard setback still
maintains a separation of 15 feet at the narrowest point, between
the street, the curb face and the building. So even though the.
setback reduction is to allow a 5-foot street yard, because of the
width of the sidewalk and the parkway planters where the street
trees will go, there would be a 15-foot spacing between the street
and the building face at its narrowest point. He explained that -%
the setback reduction is only for one portion of the house; other
portions of the house will be set back more than the 5 feet.
Jeff Hook explained that one of the reasons staff feels the setback
reduction should be allowed is to give more space at the rear of
the lot, pulling the building away from the creek area. It is the
policy of the city to try to maintain a 20-foot spacing from the
top of the creek bank to the nearest structure, whenever possible.
In this case, the spacing may be 7 or 8 feet from the house to the
top of creek bank. Staff feels that the greatest public benefit
would be to try to maintain the creek as natural as possible and
move the building an additional two feet away from the creek,
closer to the street. He noted that there are other buildings in
the neighborhood that have similar setbacks as the one being-
requested. Based on the above information, staff recommends
approval of the request, based on three findings and subject to
several conditions which he outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
Don Wright, applicant., spoke in support of the request. He said
he agreed with staff's recommendation and had only one objection
to the recommended conditions of approval. He noted that letters
supporting his request had been submitted to staff, and submitted
another for the record. Mr. Wright asked for clarification of
s��d
Page 2
C recommended condition 5, pertaining to public pedestrian access
over a portion of the southwest property corner. Jeff Hook
explained that Exhibit "A" shows a shaded area, which would have
an open space preservation easement.
Mr. Wright noted his area of disagreement. He felt the open space
preservation area would cover nearly the entire area, except for
the flat portion which will be built on. He felt the path only
should be for public pedestrian access, and the portion on the
Pismo Street side should be an easement for maintenance purposes
only. He felt that the policies and restrictions of the open space
portion would make it impossible for him to ever build in that area
anyway, and he didn't feel it was necessary to reinforce it with
an easement dedicating it all to open space.
Jeff Hook explained that there would still be an access easement
to get down to the creek at . a location he indicated on the plans.
Evelyn Talmage, 2413 Broad Street (and 1311 Pismo Street) asked
how the applicant is supposed to plant a tree on Johnson Avenue
since it is all bridge. Mr. Hook responded that credit for
existing trees would be given if it is not feasible to plant them
at that location. He further explained that a street tree is not
necessarily in the sidewalk -- it can be up to ten feet behind the
sidewalk, which would include a portion of the creek bank. Ms.
• Talmage explained that she has seen many proposals for this
property over the past 12 years and felt that the applicant has
come up with the most feasible and reasonable plan yet. . She felt
it might be too big, but said she understands that this little town
is becoming a city, and. that houses are built right up to the
sidewalk. She has already accepted that fact. Based on these
comments, Ms. Talmage supported the proposal.
Palmer B. Hewlett, 1353 Pismo Street, concurred with all that Ms.
Talmage said.
Marlie Schmidt, 1313 Pismo Street, said she felt the a single-
family residence is appropriate at the proposed location, however,
she had concerns with the size of the house with respect to the
buildable part of the lot. She explained that in 1964 an addition
was built on their house which is right up to the property line,
which was allowed at that time. She noted that the proposed house
would be only five feet from her house, noting that her house is
set back 23 feet from the street. She said she was confused as to
the actual location of the structure, since the mention of a 15-
foot separation. She explained that her house has high-beam
ceilings with windows that focus on the proposed lot, in particular
where the second-story section proposed. She said direct sunlight
comes in those windows, and might be blocked from the proposed
second story.
O
6'
•.01
Page 3
Don Wright interjected that the second-story will be 8.5 feet from
the property line, not 5 feet.
Ken Bruce explained that the issue being discussed at this hearing
is the setback reduction only.
Robert Lewin, 1.332. Pismo Street, said there is one house on the
street that has a 0-foot setback, but it has frontages on two
streets and access from both directions. He noted that there is
a bridge on Johnson Avenue which will affect access from that
street. He also noted the size of the buildable lot; the house
would be built on 3700 square of buildable property. He explained
his lot has 5800 square feet of buildable area, and the two
residences currently on his lot are a total of 1700 square feet.
He said he hoped a compromise could be reached to satisfy everyone.
Palmer Hewlett noted that his house is solar heated, and didn't
think the proposed second story would affect it.
Ken Bruce noted for the record that William Ireland at 1337 Pismo
Street, Richard Colombo at 1346 Pismo Street, RickHamlin at 1343
Pismo Street and Eugene. Miller of 1325 Pismo Street, all support
the requested variance. He further noted he received a letter from
the. San Luis Obispo County Land Conservancy, signed by Chairman of
the Creek Project Committee, Bob Jones, asking for a 20-foot creek
setback. -�
The public hearing was closed.
To those who have concerns about what the building will look like
and/or its height and size, Ken Bruce suggested they _attend a
hearing March 5th, when this project goes before the Architectural
Review Commission. He explained the ARC is the commission that
deals with those particular issues. Today's hearing only covered
the setback issue.
Ken Bruce approved the variance, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Findings
1. There are circumstances applying to the site which do not.
apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
specifically:
a. Approximately one-half (7,005 sq. ft. ) of the lot's total
area (12,392 -sq. ft. ) is included within the top of banks
of San Luis Creek, and is undevelopable.
b. The site is oddly shaped, and has dual street frontages.
Page 4
• C. Reduction of the required street yard from 20 . feet to 7
feet will allow a greater setback from the top of creek
bank than would otherwise be possible.
2. The setback reduction is consistent with prevailing
neighborhood character, in that setbacks for neighboring
structures on Pismo Street range from 0 to 15 feet.
3 . The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons living or working at the site or
in the vicinity.
Conditions
1. A street yard of not less than seven feet shall be maintained.
2. A setback of at least six feet shall be maintained from the
top of the San Luis Creek bank.
3 . The site shall be designated as a sensitive site. Any
development shall be submitted to and approved by the
Architectural Review Commission. .
4 . The property owner shall dedicate an easement for creek
maintenance, and public pedestrian access (with the right to
make improvements) over that portion of the subject property
west of the easterly top of the San Luis Creek bank, as shown
in Exhibit "A", to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Community Development Director.
5. The property owner shall install frontage improvements along
that portion of Pismo Street not fronting the creek (6-foot
integral curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway ramp and street
paveout) , per city standards.
6. Applicant shall submit to the city for review, approval and
recordation, a covenant guaranteeing that the house will be
used as one dwelling unit only.
Code Reoruirements
1. The applicant must install street trees along Pismo Street and
Johnson Avenue frontages, to the approval of the City
Arborist. Credit may be given for existing trees that meet
city standards. Approved street tree is a 15-gallon sized
California Sycamore (Platanus Racemosa) .
2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant must provide the City
Engineer with written , certification by a registered land
surveyor or civil engineer that the lowest floor elevation
complies with the Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
O
CO
Page 5
.3. The property owner must pay water acreage and frontage charges
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Ken Bruce explained that this decision could be appealed by any
person aggrieved by the decision within ten days from the action.
. �a7
�. ,t'O: CTa.
MEETIN AGENDA
DATE ITEM # -(.a
RECEIVED
cITV CLERK
!?AW Ld(g 661900 cn
� [J
• �d Vl� � �'i�
o- i314
.a'
-�kr o.t„��. Jz.,�w� . �'�' Imo. �P--
O s
RECEIVED
3 1 90 i3G� Pvc�Fi`t S� -
VM
��K UU 1 S Ob'S
Itfgrspo,cA
At4
Luis
. . .a*( . op�s�J.. ..�a fil t%c.._. !);t
Props& W. JD- abuI j
<<d 64 .. SMt �
S4r '. . Air '16-
J
I J 7tie � '-_IS fDp _SY►2a)l_.� �u t(c�. co awl- waLs
C�:,s;d _ un-b�Jcbfz --.•.. w11' pu lis
j. M r, k)n-�l�- is us7kj i 1 -his Gal c4akeds.
......dl0ad-_ 3 a a P4-
o�= � creep.
¢J, ��• WR:�W .54-bow mus .he,.la4 ;n
Ota kvta#ct-. oa I, h0 V ye. S+zc. b�
�/gaJ--is . �rr�fP,✓a�cd-._ u Carr_. � was so 4t+s .)a orf- W441?
v>. Dlrec,4 . across .fl,4 ..Crc¢4e imm fL- A0, V-
76�y
-76?_A� -ts _ Z $ rer..,� he:,Ae ou:rrNc15l
ab yrt ..land fo, - .c�1� . re:i4s. Ja.. .co f iege :Act.
COPIESTc: 5. . WK¢f- l.s.. .-ialili.n�r.... �vns . '-%oWtCuiV&e,
❑.De:otc-s ActioEl FYI
n
t� CAO L, F1i.D:R �r Cts ..-_1KU!!L _.QN. .. GY�f� 4;0 Y Ltc�I—
X ORNEY rl my DR
ICE
Ll
L4Gi::;:Tr4:m ?E—DIR
❑ 1<��.+:.` iii L.l U^,'`L�I2
JL t
O
__---
--- y -----
-
----- cans?cFsra�io�rs�_li{�-- .—v�r_.�a 11--s -b4V!j�.k_allowaif _.
-------- Ver_t.v►end.�J-��Y�1ra_CsC�_:E►�-'JviiS__ .Cv.ctW�c�f--_.�1tt---V ------
nen .:.Aclion Fn
DIIC
Tr n nf�"DIR
DIP.. - --- -
�nL DT
s�_.
I'vIIE' NG AGENDA
DATE ITSM #
t-J
i: IAA, Sefl;kJC.j AfV%C.
rpe louvrs. —M e4.w%4 11
( 9
IF c-pa".C.L
d0fa nl%t r3v Ake O(UL ot-f 4:0t, -rt�IIS :RP .
"A-
aleeT
lLow-
F0@oem&c^ rr
il:-To
1-5
^4" loo LOAu%T-% -T90
:6e JPOi[Ta kawc ::c ya 4*, -r-o I iv e. k44-w.
'5;11�AA a, COV94-01,44-Wr
..lJA4urL,6n -rLVOPr Or e44-* •�IL.L.., 41- 5"(G
'tAl tx,G OUC 04' -9%4,
AUG
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS UBISPO, CA
I:
+4LS-rov-u of oo 0 pse• +n cn4 ATc.w,
Siv...-1;)c 4rt w t 0.,&d t l rr,l t c.a0rc
-- Iii h. .1 q 89..E w� �M,c c�,ak,� �.uQ.•-�TL�.�
'M*Per Per kov-6 btu, 44x=� vvc u9
_- I: 5-rr►-P� , ,ai�G , Cid Ceva«< I °� 4cu�l,.,brrt ,
— l4tG�v ��So1q�{ SlTL LAtjOvT Glu"cS
v**..AL I ri ewe(*rWA".Ar-
wL,o �c( 7L.6-
-- l,. :Pew✓� ��
'j�
--- �i -J>--, Cwvncai Spit ' a^wir- re-dvG -
g_.. . _ (� -nc*LS �1bKecL rr �'RG # �I[Gufl�lAp{1
Lei Lsp "ore-4ciAl4,
i!. -Z-0,,,:.j �-elw•a,�,.ees j c�.�..d ,,,wed �,,.�.� .
If
--. 1. ✓r' . f3r74•F�' �cGor.rx�.�►'ttevl.S �" �A^"^g I '
_ I�: Aoe�e,�1rL.6�✓c� `fL�e_ Gr�.urceS O� 'TL« �'�-G
1" AJ AJeauvTlet, . -04sp is rC-
r. (n�tVC /�GCov+tit.o� `tit Prppriv�. AV r'Qi. G~
- l i G4;T1 atitS o+4.al.. 44 -n,►� .
i1 I
411% i ? _
at � 1-ltt�G.j' � �e✓'
I VWWI�WrIMA -soil" 4eL1LJ--r OF -x 1>1
cd w
_ . I FLA-r����ld, Ec f o,.n'e+�► of -t4A. tur-
�. -rfAt An prax , '9,40o sct .pr-.
wed ccarc-� `r,v -Sim cl;-tj � I Low- G.evs c
cc�vs..s alzo~S --3Kj r74P or- -raw . Am
R-.1 oz,,,,qlt- ad(ow; 40 7- . Aro P-.i
i
ji
�l. 1�
Al ivwS ✓�'�_,/ S�r'DAztcs - ���r
1 .
iXC IAOV� t+!4V44 % !pt -ra 101
CiJor.Nvr ((�vt s�� $«~sc of itc�c9t.bors t
�-�-
:- _.... l ALL DAW S4 r�_.g t2G Lts►v btu . CmAo9,-r As tote,
o�� tseme-�.,..cJA
A I'
'A--MrCwT ✓xAS c'. &j G
-- i! Gds �jp ISG-1�'f�r/►N.q G.. �CS Ill ai. �j�2�
'i "0*4 ekl foe- d-1"6( `n-LS
-
-
_. 'I�I`nt.1\S � 11L S PtTG of �(InQ_ F✓►z�f" `TWIT' Gt t�
du,�ldp,�•,�..�t---
- °�;uwh'S . A•pPI'o psi M"�. SG.Jc c.+4s r e�+n.�• o� 7L.¢_
lit1nW ` VoTcs w- a 3-3 �loTc -ro �ApprovG
li Cry y t./Atri 4 C 4.
- I�G,�►..r.,. s•shw��it�s^ �s1�+.� 9�- eouX�.a.�'r'
1: tr`e-s+sa..xrb l e. vs w- o4' moi -P.eva-.'r y 'j s
I:k,w►-; at ls,.a cel se as►�� vc� a,�,s -ro 4 (d
0 r tM.vl P�+•++i C.� .
jl
--- I�is�_,._ls.+�.Er9ur o: °q �7 �sT of out- ks►+.e --
;?"f .+s _ c 4W4 e,S Mt. -7V `+.res-rrl V" , �vs t- G�,tiv
j---- �. MµC'.�► ...�Lve. •T� ?M.TiTtGG� 'fe ? tor` 1
1s AmuBx,G &v%.Pr%-rteA
---. Ii .Gw.c►d�.r-._.TMs
_ I . Cer-ao t�1_ of ?Lia
Ape, Awe smG-
s_.. i ✓ca Gop Woer of vvr 1=w.4-1S' 904S✓'
wve -S
_ .. .. i µo hpprosraQ- . ®iv ilio. VYUA.W- 64,0,�1 i.Oc
�. _ ,i�,tt� .Erre...s��ss�l , `iL-«.� .,:� 61 G�►v c.
'P-
�e4.Q&✓ , A
Iii '-tt.Q. ,,,c�i [.her�� • -�.-'.
----- - I�jwu��n, `P�- - SAw•Q. amu. `�`t-+d �.cAZcs o�
ii. 1� . iJe.i� w• 'r't'�•K�eTt�orrl ---
_. jl! W.T" Ot. {.-Acl t v s OC ov v-
--
-- �io�...'�at1,IL� . 71u- t3oo �t-otitic o+� l�ct.rw
:;.lsCAc ares 6vrpocamo"� brrout-�, C.i.. A.►...
__ - 'fk e• SWI 1 dl"� utxT G�Asr CKi�i cL., �evses _.
1 r
1
---- dlrftc (r4Y eve-v'A-[( MASS 71^¢- smev
- e-1gr_tAfim. ks ew'-woq-r1 y lei-la'v. T•r- is,
------ _.._ .2.��Tort' Vo tvr» res-r-
�- -'�,-�►I�E•.:�s F1G.•oss 'Tl-�a.. � rr�ecT- .
-- �II Vie- a.v..c�eco �• �9 mad ee( �,
�__-- � cow r oE' r�..a-( .cc�•rlc.
1:
- llt%t- T:b ll•wwe� fie.
Ar ��s�Zp( CXT�•+�G t o Yf OC' T .
�,�1.tnf0)1 mak.
`- .._ I �lcat r y�Yr-�1 ewe s c cv► OF `T1-u. Go-e.�-tom.
_..__ I '�s►,�K„ f�a�. ��[et..-u..� AQP. •�
of gC404J s tpeu - Gv rb it
;� c�vT-t-l.� t s-creer -rre.es — 4 5'
�_-. . I� Ga��LrerA4j+�Y�-. ��G.Mw•or�G j ^(D �{�.�.
c-w^.o't L, of mow- CKcc-K.
- Ij: Gr���,e•fa
1o, C22t. ,lel i -- 1114L scrF3rK.3c
�- IiRCAVGr PAS 14.Ave -bec*. A-(la,veJ 1%,
-- Il;d��iq�1 oP �"�tuantcc...�J � �olicics 77
�.. � �.MsS7"1C� 1S � ��S "(LrcS (Nt�tG �•••
A
,I
I:
It
Ii
i.
— - - {�Z.�.. . 1►,te.C�l..'��rl+oot�.. � tNc.Go.+.Qq,. blc.
�1 -TL..s cr�4w�,:•� i
I
--- j .l�-u.1G�.b•,rs �.ry ti,�o , �t+rn'cG � r�.s►-sA,,
f;
-- Ij
;L.
I
^` MEETING AGENDA
V DATE '-7 - ?PETEM # tO
1336 Pismo Stet RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
*Denotes action by Lead Peraon Q1�� !, �,_ RD-
August
9QU
Au t 6 1990 %1
Respond by: M 661;1iK
xc.ouncil SAN lU!S 0$1SP0.CA
Honorable Mayor and City Council cao h ;0 a
City of San Luis Obispo ctee k '1
City Hall 4$1%
San Luis Obispo, California e
SUBJECT: Don Wright appeal o► an Architectural Review Commission
decision
Dear Mayor and members of the City Council:
I urge you to deny the appeal by Mr. Don Wright without prejudice toward
more compatible designs in future applications. My earlier letter to the
Architectural Review Commission supported their request for a smaller,
1,200 to 1,400 square foot house, and I ask you also to seek such a
structure.
Perhaps it is not reasonable to expect the development of a residence on
the approximately 3,500 square feet of site area between the front
setback and San Luis Obispo Creek. The city Open Space Plan identifies
the site for acquisition apparently with this in mind, and yet the
Council refused to acquire the site. Should the city rethink its
decision not to acquire the property now that the severe limitations of
the property so apparently affect a specific project?
The city staff granted a Variance for the front setback, assuring
concerned people that the imposition of the structure to within 7 feet of
the front property line would be mitigated by the ARC, so no appeal was
filed. That decision is final. However, the applicant has redesigned
the front from a staggered wall to a monolithic vertical wall, similar to
another controversial site across Johnson Avenue where no variance was
allowed. This switching to a less sensitive design after receiving the
variance disregards the basis that supported it.
The city has informal guidelines for a 20-foot creekbank setback or
separation. In this case the applicant proposes building within 6 to 10
feet of the creekbank. Property owners in the vicinity have been denied
an encroachment on the creekbank and are interested if the city approves
I
a narrow setback here. This is a sensitive site that variances and
creekbank encroachment do nothing to resolve or mitigate. This site and
the size of nearby structures all point to a small house as the most
compatible development.
Sincerely,
ames Lopes
LL�
Z, LU co
<
Cm
rn
LIJ
IRA
� .� Gj - - - .. \ (orf � ��
Jb.
O
CII)
rk
BL
-mf7 f, -'a%/ONL4
MEETING DA
/ IV
� n
moo-
r
_oo5,�
/
vl ,lll�� k /A// Sig=
I / Y
•
SUO
/40
15 3Q
_
O
r
1
i �
.y
"I soon
AAto QTC Aokod �►
i'i . ♦ 1
4b ,
if L4
vi
st
too
vo C-44
/Se-«c� fde�
i;
H RECEIVktD
'a
CA
U-5 m
..i