HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1990, 1 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A NEW HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE, AT 367 MEETING DATE:
���►�i�iIIIII�Ipa► �► city of san Luis osispo -"7
SWIrms COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: /
PROM: Arnold Jonas, Communi evelopment Director
Prepared By: Jeff Hoo ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of an Architect al Review Commission action
denying a new house on a sensitive site, at 367 Hill
Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
After considering public testimony, Architectural Review Commission
comments, and the staff report, adopt a resolution to uphold or
deny the appeal subject to the appropriate findings and conditions.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The report summarizes the Architectural Review Commission's action,
its previous direction to the applicant, and the plan changes the
applicant has made in response to ARC direction. It also
summarizes hillside development standards which were addressed
during use permit review and which now concern some Architectural
Review Commission members.
BACKGROUND
Since this site is zoned R-1-S for special considerations and is
designated a "sensitive site", its development requires both
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
approval. The ARC has denied the project and the property owners
have appealed. Appeals of ARC decisions are .heard by the City
Council.. Following is chronology of the actions taken on this
project to dates i
June 4, 1990: ARC continues the project with direction to use
a darker stucco color for the main body of the
house, de-emphasize the roof's horizontality,
and to use faster-growing tree species along
with the proposed Live Oak trees.
June 19, 1990: Planning Commission denies the use permit to
allow the proposed Jeong house on a sensitive
site (U1463) .
September 4, 1990: City Council concurs with the project's
environmental determination, upholds the appeal
of the Planning Commission's denial and
approves Use Permit U1463 to allow the Jeong
house.
October 10 1990: ARC denies the proposed Jeong house (ARC 89-
122) . Three commissioners object to the scale
and design of the house, and feel that itdoes
not conform to hillside standards.
city of sa►n Luis oaIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council upholds the appeal, the appellants will be able to
proceed with their building permit application. 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.
DATA SUMMARY
Applicants/appellants: William and Beatrice Jeong
Representative: Rob Strong
Zoning: R-1-S and C/OS-20
General Plan: Low-Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space
Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt (CEQA Section 15303)
Site Description: The irregularly-shaped lot covers about two
acres and slopes steeply down to Hill Street. The lot is bisected
by the 320-foot contour, which is the city's urban reserve line.
The lot's upper half is zoned C/OS-20 and is outside the city's
urban reserve. Slope averages about 23 percent, with a maximum
slope of 40 percent along the site's northern boundary. A concrete
driveway extends up from Hill Street to serve this and the adjacent
two lots, sloping at about 18 to 20 percent, up to 23 percent in
some areas. Grading for the driveway has resulted in cut and fill
slopes to heights of 11 feet. Grasses with small shrubs cover most
of the lower slopes, with mature oak trees occurring along and
above a ridgeline at the site's upper end. Houses border the site
on adjacent hillsides to the north and south, and to the east
across Hill Street. KSBY television studio is located on the same
side of Hill Street, just south of the site.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
On October 1, 1990 the ARC voted 4 to 2 to deny the house. During
voting, the commission was split with 3 commissioners for (Commrs.
Cooper, Morris, and Underwood) and 3 against (Commrs. Gates,
Bradford, and Phillips) granting final approval. To break the
impasse, Commissioner Morris supported a denial to allow an appeal.
Commissioner Chatham was absent.
From the June 4th meeting's discussion and minutes, it appeared
that most commissioners felt that the house was appropriately sited
and that it would be compatible with the neighborhood's
architectural character; but that they wanted to see a restudy of
the house's roofline and other architectural details to reduce its
apparent mass and add visual interest. Two commissioners (Commrs.
Bradford and Chatham) felt that the house should be stepped more
to meet the intent of the Hillside Design Standards. Commissioners
also discussed the issue of house size; however commissioners did
applicant to reduce floor area. /-�
1
�� fl►�IIII��� U C17CY of san tuts oBi spo
CO NCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Basis For Appeal
The appellants explain the appeal in the attached letter. They
cite efforts to comply with staff and ARC direction, and note that
there has been no public opposition or objection to the house by
neighbors (with one exception: Santacqua letter attached) . They
feel that the ARC was clear in its June 4th direction; and that the
ARC's October lst action to deny the project was inconsistent with
the commission's previous direction and with the council's use
permit approval.
Project Changes
After the ARC's June 4th meeting, the applicant made these changes:
1. Changed the roofline above the garage (front elevation, sheet
5) to de-emphasize the roof's horizontality. A hip roof
section is now connected to the main portion of the house with
a short, flat roof section.
2. Selected slightly darker stucco and trim colors. (A color and
materials board is available in the Council office) .
3 . Revised the landscaping to include fast-growing, drought
tolerant trees interplanted with Live Oaks. Added species
include Bishop Pine, Toyon, and Mission Olive.
EVALUATION
The revised plans appeared to resolve commissioner's concerns
raised at the June 4th meeting. The hillside planning issues of
grading and scale, and the issue of neighborhood design
compatibility were not the focus of the commission's June 4th
action. Consequently, in its September 4th staff report, staff did
not re-evaluate hillside planning issues but instead focused on the
ARC's previous direction. The applicant had revised the plans as
directed, and then submitted thein for the council's September 4th
hearing. When the council approved the use permit, the same plans
were resubmitted for final ARC approval.
Staff feels that the house is attractive, and will be compatible
with neighboring houses. As noted previously, the 4500 square
foot, two-story house will appear large. However hillside
standards do not set floor area limits. Given the house's floor
area and the client's design preferences, the project appears
consistent with the Hillside Development Standards dealing with
grading, stepping of the foundation, and other standards outlined
below.
/- 3
�� 1i �IVlllll���ln�ui►���U city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
Hillside Development Standards
In reviewing projects on sensitive hillside sites, the ARC
typically focuses on grading and drainage, visual impact, design
compatibility with neighboring structures, building colors, and
landscaping. In the R-1 zone, General Plan policies encourage a
wide range of individual architectural expression, consistent with
the neighborhood's overall range of building scale, materials,
orientation and design. For hillside areas, the City has adopted
design standards to guide staff and commission review. The
standards pertinent to ARC review, and the project's design
. response, are outlined below:
1. Grading on individual lots should be minimized. Houses should
generally be built close to the street. The grading of
visible driveways should be minimized.
Staff has worked with the applicant to address several grading and
design concerns. These plans show marked improvement over early
versions, especially with regard to grading. In this revised
design, the amount of cut has been reduced from about 1700 to 1200
cu. yds. By eliminating a previous through-driveway and
portecochere, the designer was able to shift the house and reduce
the amount of cut. The house is located about midway between the
lower end of the lot and the C/OS boundary, about 70 feet above
Hill Street. In staff's view, the house's location is appropriate,
given the site's topography and existing driveway location.
2. Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform to the
slope of the hill and keep a low profile. The use of
prominent stem walls and foundation piers should be avoided.
The house has been cut into the hill to a depth of about eight
feet. The house is designed so that the upper floor meets grade
at the rear of the house, and the lower floor (main entry level)
steps down to a sunken family room and bedroom opening onto a
covered portico along the front of the house. A six-foot high wall
retains the portico, front entry, and a portion of the parking
area. With a different floor plan, the house could be stepped more
on the site; however given this house's size and design, staff
feels that the plan responds adequately to the standard.
3. Landscaping which is visually compatible with existing
hillside vegetation should be used to screen building
foundations and provide a landscaped transition between
housing areas and adjacent open space.
lam" /
���ti�i �Vlllll�pA� �� city of san 1u1s osispo
CO NCIL A0r=NDA REPORT
Page 5
Foundation and retaining walls would be densely landscaped, and
front and rear yards would have a range cf drought-resistant ground
covers, shrubs and. trees to provide a visual transition to the
natural hillside vegetation. Coast Live Oak would be the dominant
tree type used to soften and enframe views of and from the house's
elevations. The plan appears to meet the City's landscape
standards for water conservation, although staff recommends that
more California native plant species be used. The additional fast
growing trees shown in the revised plans are appropriate, in
staff's view. More information is needed on irrigation, plant
sizes, spacing, and planting details, and erosion control needs to
be addressed.
4. Color and texture of buildings should blend with the natural
landscape, and highly contrasting colors or materials should"
be avoided.
As revised, the darker beige house color will be more recessive and
contrast less with the natural, dark green colors of the hillside
during winter than the previous light beige. It will also blend
in within the hillside's golden brown color in late Spring, Summer,
and Fall, and Staff has no problems with the revised colors. The
mission-tile roof, common red brick, bronze anodized aluminum
window frames, and dark brown wood trim will blend in with the
hillside's natural colors, and are appropriate, in staff's view.
Other Issues
A. House Size
This is a very large house. While it appears to comply with
hillside development standards and the Zoning Regulations, the
standards do not address maximum house size or otherwise set limits
on height, floor area or lot coverage. The fundamental issue seems
to be whether the house's scale and design are appropriate for this
site. The larger the house, the more difficult it becomes to meet
hillside design standards regarding grading, access, and stepping
of house designs. With the proposed landscaping, the house does
not appear to pose overlook and privacy problems for neighbors.
There are other houses of this size, or larger, located in hillside
areas ringing the City. However because of the site's visibility
from Chorro Street and State Highway 101, a large house on this
site will stand out. Over time, with the proper selection of
colors and landscape screening, the house will be less noticeable
and will blend in with the hillside.
Ae<
�,� i �IVIIIIIII�� �I��U city of sa►n tui s osi spo
CO NCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
B. Project "Fit"
While the house is large, it appears to "fit" the site in terms of
topography, setbacks, coverage, and open space:
1. The house conforms to Zoning Regulations for building height,
setbacks, and lot coverage. The site area is about 2 acres,
but its actual buildable area in the. R-1 zone is about one-
half the total area. The proposed house covers about 2700
square feet, or about three (3) percent of the total site
area. This is consistent with City standards which allow a
maximum lot coverage of 40% in the R-1 zone.
2. As required by a recommended condition of approval, the
remaining 1/2 of the lot's total area would be preserved as
open space through dedication of an easement to the City. No
development would occur above the 310 foot contour elevation -
- well below the lower Conservation/Open Space boundary at 320
feet.
3. The plan utilizes existing graded areas on the site, and
avoids the steepest portions. About 10,000 square feet. of the.
site would be disturbed by grading for the building. No
additional grading is required for driveways or utilities,
since the site is already served by both.
C. visual Impact
Staff does not feel that the project will have a significant, long-
term visual impact, although initially it will be highly visible
from the neighborhood below. All significant trees on are to
be preserved. The house's main visual impact would be from the
Chorro Street neighborhood from Center Street south to State
Highway 101. It would generally not be visible from major public
streets or from other nearby hillside areas. Due to existing
highway vegetation, the house would be visible only momentarily by
motorists travelling south on State Highway 101, and not at all by
northbound motorists. The appellant will be prepared to show
photos and/or slides at the meeting which show the house's visual
impact.
Staff Concerns
The following are relatively minor but as yet unresolved issues
which councilmembers may wish to discuss with the applicant:
1111111111110111111I city of sa►n Luis OBlspO
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Page 7
Landscaping
Hillside design standards require foundation plantings to provide
a smooth visual transition between the house and the natural
hillside. Retaining walls, disturbed or graded areas, and the
edges of the site are particularly important. Some of the basic
screening plants proposed may not be well suited to this site due
to their water or other horticultural need. For example, Shiny
Xylosma, Trumpet Creeper, and Trailing African Daisy are less
drought-tolerant than other possible screening plant materials.
Staff suggests the applicant restudy the site plan to use
California native plants or more drought-tolerant species for
screening, or the main shrub or tree plantings.
Irrigation/drainage
Due to the site's hillside location and geology, the project's
engineering geologist recommends that percolation of water into
subsoils be minimized. Irrigation and site drainage systems need
to be designed to prevent excessive surface runoff, while still
providing sufficient water to plants to insure their health until
established. Plans call out "hand watering in individual basins",
however staff questions whether this will be practical. An
automatic drip irrigation system should be provided, consistent
with the City's landscape standards. Fruit trees, annuals and
other planting which isn't necessary for screening, visual
transition or erosion control could be hand watered, at the owner's
option.
Special erosion control measures, including concrete drain swales
and jute mesh (or equal) with slope seeding may be necessary.
where visible from public ways, the drain swales should be of
colored concrete to blend in with the hillside.
Site Lighting
Plans show 200 watt maximum house lighting. These is considerably
brighter than the typical 60 - 100 porch light used for most homes,
however if properly shielded these would not pose a concern. No
driveway lighting is shown. If it is planned, it should be
discussed with the applicant. All site lighting should be low
level, and designed and located to avoid casting glare toward the
street and across property lines.
��lyi city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "A", upholding the appeal
and approving the project subject to the recommended findings
and conditions.
2'. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "B", denying the appeal
and upholding the ARC's action subject to the recommended
findings.
3. Continue the item with direction to staff or the appellant.
4. Refer the item back to the ARC with direction.
Attachments:
-Draft Resolutions
-Appellant's Letter
Vicinity Map
-Neighbor's letter
-Use Permit 1463
-ARC minutes
jh/d/jeongscc.wp
��O
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
C
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONIS ACTION
DENYING A NEW HOUSE AT 367 HILL STREET, (ARC 89-122) .
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 367 Hill Street (ARC 89-
122) , the appellants' statements, the Architectural Review
Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
hereby upholds the appeal and makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project use will be compatible with adjacent
residences and with the neighborhood in terms of
architectural scale, massing, and design;
G 2 . The
proposed project is consistent with Hillside
Development Standards in that the house is recessed
approximately eight feet into the site at its rear, it
incorporates stepped levels to follow the site's
topography, and that it minimizes grading through the
project's design.
3 . The proposed project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under the City's Environmental
Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303 (a) .
SECTION 2. Project Approval. Plans dated September 21,
1990 for the new house at 367 Hill Street are hereby granted final
architectural approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted for
Community Development Department staff approval, and shall
meet the City's Landscape Standards for Water Conservation.
2. Special erosion control measures shall be used, including:
jute mesh fabric or equal on all disturbedlandscape areas
C of 4:1 or steeper, hydroseeding, and surface drain swales
with integral color, to the approval . of the Community 9
EXI1IBIT A
X
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 2
Development Director and City Engineer.
3 . Site lighting shall be shielded or placed so that it does
not cast glare on to adjacent properties. Exterior
lighting shall be limited to low-level, low intensity
fixtures of 150 watts per fixture or less. No highs-
intensity
igh-intensity exterior yard lights shall be used.
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 A inistrative Officer ��
I l
O
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 3
ttIrnelf Or
ommunity velopment Director
C
O
r i
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) -'
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONIS ACTION
DENYING A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE AT 367 HILL STREET,
(ARC 89-122) .
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of, the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration ofdpublic testimony, the appellants' application and
plans for architectural review for a new house at 367 Hill Street
(ARC 89-122) , the appellants' statements, the Architecture Review
Commission'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, massing,
and architectural design.
2 . The proposed project is not consistent with the Hillside
Development Standards, since it does not comply with the
requirements to minimize grading, to step the building to
to conform to the slope and keep a low profile, and to
provide landscaping which is visually compatible with the
existing hillside vegetation.
3 . The proposed project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under the City's Environmental
Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303 (a) .
On motion of ,
seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
04
-%,E ki 1017-11, T v""
i-0i01.
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
G' Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
C'
ity A inistrative Officer
it -Attdnej// I�r
Gt
Community evelopment Director
V
O
A/3 3
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm StreetlPosl 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 Architectural Review Commission rendered
on October 1, 1990 which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
ARC 89-122 - 367 Hill Street, Jeong/Strong
(See attached letter. )
RECEIVED
OCT 5 1990
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
William and Beatrice Jeong
Name/Title
Rob _Strong
Representative
One Buena Vista, SLO 93401
Address
543-9560
Phone
Original for City Clerk
j
Copy to City Attorney
Calred for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
71- 7 Copy to the following department(s) :
E.11, ✓ « A. Jonas
City Clerk
I
6AAM 0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNUNG ONE BUENA VISTA ROB STRONG
PLANNING PRoiEEcr'mAONOMIC RNA T cAu EARCH SANo N 93OBIS01, 805) 543-9560
�®®
MILL.
October 3, 1990
Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City Hall, 990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Appeal of denial for final review, ARC 89-122
New house on R-I-S site, 367 Hill Street, Jeong/Strong
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers:
On October 1, 1990, at the fifth meeting of the ARC regarding theproposed
hillside residence design at 367 Hill Street and despite staff recommended
approval, three commissioners would not accept the recent City Council
decision regarding the size and site planning of the house. Instead of
resolving the three items identified at their June 4 meeting as requiring
refinement or revision - roof line, stucco color and supplemental fast growth
landscaping - these three commissioners denied the project. Rather than
suffer additional delay and continuance, one of the three commissioners
favoring approval acted to enable our appeal.
� i The adverse action and the attitude of these three commissioners is
discouraging to a design professional and very unfair to the applicants who
have cooperated with staff and the commission itself to improve the proposal
during almost a year of review. These commissioners ignored the actions and
interpretations of the City Council regarding hillside design standards and
policy interpretations.
As before, there was and has not been any public objection or opposition to
our proposals, and the revised plans were recommended by staff.. We prefer
the color and materials proposed but will also consent to the ARC suggestions
of even darker stucco color, with site lighting, landscape and irrigation
details subject to staff approval. All other aspects of the final design are
identical to the plans considered by the City Council on September 4, 1990,
and the use permit approved at that time.
Enclosed is the ARC staff report and also several support letters received
during the prior appeal. The same issue of abuse of authority is at stake,
and I am again thankful that this matter has potential redress by appeal to
the City Council.
If you or staff have any questions or need further information before the
public hearing on this appeal, please feel free to call me at 543-9560.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
Rob Strong, A.I. .P
OCT 5 1990
cc: Jeong ,
CI'rY
LUIS CBISP
SAN ll;l$OBISPO,CA
•- -— - ..� - O _--�- .moi \
� t �
to
oC '� o
O t0 0�0 p '_� • . � p � . � I
+ O r1 '
v
1-0101
S' r �
+t
1
4 i ♦♦ W_
• �� /
1
do
if
I Q
VICINITY MAP
ARC 89-122
USE PERMIT U1463
375 Hill Street
San Luis Obispo
California 93405
October 4,1990
Mayor Dunin and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hall, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Subject: Proposed Building Permit
at 367 Hill Street by
William and Beatrice Jeong
Dear Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers:
We recommend the approval for an appropriate hillside
building permit for the Jeongs providing these conditions
are fully met.
Our home is adajacent to this building site. We are
very much concerned with the proposed large excavation on
this sensitive mountain site and how soil and rocks will be
Cheld in place.
We are also concerned .with the run-off of water into
an underground storage tank above and adjacent to our home
and the possibility of water leakage.
We know the Jeongs are in the student rental business
(over 100 students) and grocery business. We would not want
these business operations to greatly increase the traffic flow
to this site as the road is inadequate to handle it and any
business operation would deter from the quiet surrounding area.
We feel that all above concerns should be fully answered
for the protection and well being of our home which lies
directly below the proposed sensitive building site.
We invite all city council members to feel free to visit
our home and inspect the building site.
Sincerely,
jJ
REOCSIVED
smw wiluls04
RESOLUTION N0. 6865 (1990 Series)
' 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A USE PERMIT
FOR A NEW HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE AT 367 HILL STREET, (U 1463) .
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 a use permit to allow a two-story, 4500 square
foot house at 367 Hill Street, (U 1463) the appellants' statements,
the Planning Commission's action, and staff recommendations and
reports thereon, hereby upholds the appeal. and makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed project conforms to Zoning Regulations and
Hillside Planning Standards and 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 its visual impact:
A. Site and building plans are designed to take
advantage of existing driveway location. and
previously graded areas to minimize site
disturbance.
B. Grading for the proposed house has been designed
to minimize the need for prominent stem walls or
tall retaining walls.
C. The proposed house is setback at least .51 feet from
Hill Street, and approximately 60 feet from the
nearest adjacent house.
D. The applicant intents to grant an irrevocable offer
to dedicate an open space easement over
approximately one-half of the lots' total area to
preserve the upper hillside area in its natural
state.
3. Based on the City's Environmental Guidelines and the
California Environmental Quality Act, the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review, CEQA
Section 15303.
4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working on the site
Cor in the vicinity.
5. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location
and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
SECTION 2. Project Approval. Use Permit U1463, allowing
a two-story house at 367 Hill Street is hereby approved subject
the following conditions:
1. The site is considered a sensitive site, and the project
shall require Architectural Review Commission approval.
2. Applicant shall grant to the City an irrevocable offer of
dedication for an open space easement on that portion of
the. lot above the 320-foot contour elevation, to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
3. Applicant shall install building sprinklers and a dry
standpipe for fire protection, to the approval of the
Public Works Department and the Fire Marshal.
4. Applicant shall submit, with any subsequent construction
permit application, an engineering geology report prepared
by a registered engineer licensed by the State of
California to provide such services. Grading, drainage,
and building plans shall strictly conform to the
requirements of the engineering geology report, to the
approval of the Chief Building Official.
5. Drought-tolerant landscaping shall be used which is
visually compatible with the hillside and which screens the
retaining walls and house foundation, to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
On motion of Councilman Reiss
seconded by Councilwoman Rappa and on the following roll call
vote: .
AYES: Councilmembers Reiss, Rappa, and Mayor Dunin
NOES: Councilman Roalman
ABSENT:Councilwoman Pinard
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 4th day
OOf September , 1990.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
V
Pam Voge City Clerk
APPROVED:
ce� r
C' y ini'strdtive Officer
Ctt e
Community DevellonAnt `Director
ARC Minutes
C June 4, 1990
Page 13
5. ARC 89-122: 367 Hill Street; new house on sensitive site; R-1-S & C/OS 20
zones; schematic review.
Commr. Underwood stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending schematic
approval.
Rob Strong, representative, responded to the staff report and explained the proposed'
siting of the house given the driveway access and site topography. He noted the
house size was consistent with the scale of other houses in the neighborhood and was
set farther down the hill than allowed (410 ft. elevation rather than 420 ft. elevation).
He also noted the bottom story of the house was embedded into the hill. He
indicated that moving the house up or down the hill would increase grading. He
agreed with the commission's comments on colors and landscaping. He noted a split-
face block material would be used for the retaining walls. He was interested in how
the commission could dictate a floor area ceiling.
Commr. Cooper appreciated the photograph montage.
Commr. Gates was concerned with the amount of hardscape needed for terracing the
house and the lack of outside living spaces. She questioned why the applicants
needed such a large house.
Rob Strong noted the applicant had a large extended family.
Commr. Bradford found it difficult to minimize grading with the size of the house.
She felt the house was not stepped in the true spirit of hillside standards. She felt
the main stucco color should be darker but the red roofing tyle was appropriate. She
felt the scale of the house was larger than other homes in the neighborhood and
wanted to see less of a horizontal emphasis to the roofline.
Commr. Chatham concurred with Commr. Bradford and felt the house should be
stepped more.
Commr. Cooper suggested using faster growing trees with oaks. He agreed with
Commr. Bradford about using a darker stucco color. He liked the horizontal
emphasis rather than a vertical emphasis and suggested increasing the eave dimensions
to add deeper shadow lines which would help recess the house into the hill.
ARC Minutes
June 4, 1990
Page 14
Commr. Morris liked the house's horizontal emphasis. He noted that oaks are very
slow growing and suggested using Monterey Pines.
Commr. Bradford moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to use
a darker stucco color for the main body of the house, have less horizontal emphasis
in the house's roofline, and use faster-growing tree species in conjunction with the
proposed oaks.
Commr. Chatham seconded the motion.
AYES: Bradford, Chatham, Gates, Morris, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Phillips, Underwood
The motion passes.
Commr. Underwood returned to the meeting.
6. ARC 89-137: 1575 Bishop S!eet; new recovery care facility; PF-S zone; final
review. -
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the report recommending final
approval with changes and details to return to tall for approval.
John Pryor, representative, responded to a staff report and indicated the project had
more of a residential feel by lowering a porte cochere. He noted the project site
was not used for parking by adjacent ffiees or the hospital. He felt landscaping
could be worked out with staff and d to keep the stucco color as proposed. He
noted the windows would have true divide Res and be inset a few inches, and that
the globes of light fixtures would be, obscure
Commr. Bradford liked the changes made to th porte Cochereeelbut
suggested the applicant work with staff on li _ She also wanted to we faster-
growing screening along the westerly prope line.
Commr. Chatham Concurred with staffs mmendation.
Commr. Cooper wanted landscape scree ' g added around the trash
enclosure/emergency generator. He felt the columns and :light standards were very
4 Octob
City of San Luis Obispo
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
City Hall, Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Reference: Project 89-122/367 Hill Street Action of 1 October 1990.
Chairperson Duane Morris,
On 15 August 1990 1 wrote a letter to Mayor Dunin and all other City Council-
members recommending that they uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission's
action denying the use permit (U1463) relating to the subject project.
THE COUNCIL UPHELD THE APPEAL on 4 September 1990 On a .3 to I POSITIVE VOTE
and referred the project to the ARC for final review and approval.
Your Commission received this matter for review with an official Staff
Report stating their Summary Reca=endation: GRANT FINAL APPROVAL. This Staff
Report also assured your Commission that the applicant had complied with or
agreed to comply with every suggestion/requirement made by Staff and your
Carmission.
Mr. and Mrs. Jeong have been consistently responsive to the City's profes-
sional guidance. They have spent over $40,000 and two years in the process of
meeting the ARC's sequence of requirements . .. 'and have met every reasonable
request!
The action of your Commission to withhold approval of the referenced
project -- in spite of professional and City Council approvals -- is NOT IN THE
PROPER SERVICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. Your treatment of the Jeongs is viewed by
many as being selectively punitive . . . and properly subject to legal challenge.
Please act to rescind your action of 1 October 1990 relative to Project
89-122/367 Hill Street ... GRANT FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPING,
IRRIGATION and SITE DRAINAGE AND LIGHTING DETAILS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
The severity of your judgement against the Jeongs and their planned
residence is most objectionable and unwarranted. my family is now in its 6th
generation as San Luis Obispo natives. we have never treated our neighbors
the way you have been treating Mr. and Mrs. Jeong. Please correct your error
in judgement of the referenced Project 89-122/367 Hill Street, as soon as you can.
Sincerely,
Ray Kathlen
�j -B&ll
trao T
77 alrr�Stre�et
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7098
cc: Mr. and Mrs. William Jeong REC;F.IVED
ONMr. Rob Strong
Mayor Dunin and CouncilmeTbeers
T OCT 2 6 1990
Architpctural. Review Commissioners
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
0
Ir;rrtc
Mrs. Paula C. Gurney
2436 Johnson Avenue i
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 t
,
190
3 Ifo l
7
��- c9--v l�`'�-�Yt-1,yt. -+- �.,t� ems••-�.,�,GI.,Q �tR.ja..Q1,[.t�� ,
f
RECEIVED
OCT 2 6 MU
CITY rouNCIL
IMAM /1--7-90
October 5 , 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Architechtural Review Commission L
City Hall , Palm Street
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
RE Project # 89-122/367 Hill Street
action taken on Oct . 1 , 1990
Mr . Duane Morris :
I am again writing the city , (first letter on Aug . 14 to the
City Council) , relative to the request of William and Beatrice
Jeong to build the house they have so long desired to have .
I s-ee that the recommendation was made to grant them final
approval subject to landscaping , irregation and site drainage
and lighting. They are long time residents and respected
business persons in San Luis . I believe they can be trusted
Oto follow the official recommendations made to them.
Please allow the Jeongs to proceed with building their new
home without further delay. I believe they have been delayed long
enough ! Please grant them every possible consideration.
Sincerely,
Brother Richard Aoratto , FSC
Old Mission San Luis Obispo
751 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RECEIVED
OCT 2 6 199U
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
SETING AGENDA /
P. 0. Box 415 DATE 11-740 ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93406
October 24, 1990 ,,
RECEIV
NnV ,. 5 1990
Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers "�v CIEHK
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hall, 990 Palm Street nBl�PO.C�
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Subject: Appeal of denial of final review, ARC 89-122
New house of R-I-S site, 367 Hill Street, Jeong/Strong
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers:
I attended the ARC meeting of October 1, 1990 regarding the above
project as well as the City Council meeting of September 4, 1990
on the same subject.
At the ARC meeting what was scheduled to be a determining of the
shade of stucco color and two other very minor items turned into
a general review of the project.
It appeared that all the old objections which the Council laid to .
rest on September 4, 1990 were resurrected. These issues then
became the issue the ARC acted upon.
The "street talk" regarding this matter is that the ARC is
over-ruling the City Council.
Your reaffirmation of your September 4, 1990 action and your
over-ruling of the ARC action of -October 1, 1990 will assure
that justice is being done.
�jSincerely, �e
L
Ralph W. Lingle :0;��Otcs
TO.
IcjAction F17� CDDOM
RWL:js t ❑ FLN.Da
6[1 A Ao I� FL'<EC1-!a
C� ,
MEETRIG AliEf40A /
DAT -?-90 ITEM # !
November 7, 1990
RE: APPEAL- ARC
367 Hill Street, SID
Jeong Residence
CDear Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers;
Due to prior commitments for this evening, an ARC member cannot be present
at tonights meeting to answer Councils' questions on the Jeong Residence.
I have been asked by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to relay the ARC
concerns regarding this project.
The majority of ARC members felt, as did a majority of the Planning
Commission, that the proposed residence does not meet the Hillside
Development Standards. The nature of the these guidelines requires
interpretation, and as such, there are valid grounds for honest
differences of opinion. The basic concerns of the ARC were as follows:
1) The proposed design does not respect it's location on a notable natural
feature (the hillside) . The need for extensive grading, drainage controls
and a structure completely surrounded by retaining walls is evidence of
this disruption.
2) The scale of the proposed structure contrasts significantly with homes
in this neighborhood, particularly given the prominent nature of the site
from major streets. This project and possible projects like it, taken
together, could change the character of the neighborhood for the worse in
addition to intruding on public vistas of the hillside. The proposed scale
of the structure is insensitive to the high visibility of this site.
3) The apparent size of the structure could be reduced, without a large
square footage adjustment, were the design stepped to a greater degree and
the building 'orientation altered to not present the long axis of the
building to the most visually prominent direction.
It should be noted that the applicant was offered a continuance by the
C., ARC, however the applicant's representative declined further
modifications, in favor of a denial that would permit an appeal to the
Council. If an applicant indicates that they have no desire to work within
ARC direction, there is no alternative to a denial. It was the applicant's
impression that since the Council upheld the appeal of the Planning
Commission decision, the structure was "ok" as presented. At the only
prior ARC meeting for this proposal, the item was continued to bring the
design further into compliance with the Hillside Development Standards. It
was the belief, of a majority of the ARC present at the 9/4/90 meting,
that the modified design presented did not adequately address prior
Commission direction.
Lastly, the ARC would like to request, regardless of your vote on the
appeal tonight, that Council address the issues of color and landscape
irrigation. Often an appeal's minor items are forgotten that could both
lessen the impact of the project (color) or bring the design into
compliance with City guidelines (Landscape Standards). These items could
also be sent back to the ARC at the Council's pleasure.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully Submitted,
NOV 7 1490
Melinda Brad ord
Vif�'Ol[NK
SAI:
COPIES TO:
❑;Henan Antonp FYf
I Ci CDDDIR
_ycip ❑ FIN.DR
1CAO ❑ rREcKr,T
C3/
j ZATTOR.�IEY rJ nv om.
rK[_ CLERK/071x. l7 inLICECH.
❑ :4CP.11:TP.AM 11 21CIE)IIL
I-�
5t
FAL.=
. L-E'T1hIG
AGENDA /
'eATE /l ITEM #
P. 0. Box 415
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93406
October 24, 1990
Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hail, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca.. 93401
Subject: Appeal of denial of final review, ARC 89-122
New house of R-I-S site, 367 Hill Street, Jeong/Strong
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Councilmembers:
I attended the ARC meeting of October 1, 1990 regarding the above
project as well as the City Council meeting of September 4, 1990
on the same subject..
At the ARC meeting what was scheduled to be a determining of the
shade of stucco color and two other very minor items turned into
a general review of the project.
It appeared that all the old objections which the Council Laid to
rest on September 4, 1990 were resurrected. These issues then
became the issue the ARC acted upon.
The "street talk" regarding this matter is that the ARC is
over-ruling the City Council.
Your reaffirmation of your September 4, 1990 action and your
over-ruling of the ARC action of October 1, 1990 will assure
that justice is being done..
Sincerely,
Ralph W. Lingle
COPIBTO:
RWL:j s ❑;* Action M
1._t,,�' 6d�CDDDIR.
I�C�AO ❑
FN.DHL
LC��f_�rACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
L�f y��T�RMIEY ❑ FW DIR
UYCLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE Ca
❑ MGMT.TEA tvI ❑ REG DM
RIECEIVED' ° C� C7JI'�i�D
Lid
NOV 2 1990
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
l i
October 30, 1990
/ ?
City of San Luis Obispo - ----..
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
City Hall , Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Reference: Project 89-122/367 Hill Street
Chairperson Duane Morris,
I had previously written a letter in August to
Mayor Dunin and all the City Council members recommending
that the Jeongs ' be granted the right to build their
home on 367 Hill St. On Sept. 4, 1990 the Council on a
3 to 1 positive vote referred the project to the ARC
for final review and approval .
Despite staff recommended approval, three commissioners
would not accept the recent City Council decision. The
Jeongs ' have been more than willing to act on every and
any suggestion made by your staff. As a result, they
have spent more than $40, 000. and two years in the process
of meeting the requirements set by the ARC. The abuse
the Jeongs ' are receiving is viewed by many as being
highly prejudiced.
The Jeongs ' have been more than patient and your
judgment against their proposed residence is appalling.
Please reconsider- your decision pertaining to the
referenced project and correct your error.
Sincerely,
RECEIVE ®
Ton ancT Mabel Sam NOV 5 1990
54' Via Vaquero
A�'royo Grande, CA 93420 CITY CLERK
( 805 ) 489-9257 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
cc: Mr. and Mrs . William Jeong
Mr. Rob Strong
Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers
Architectural Review Commissioners