HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1998, 4 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PROJECT APPLICATION NO. ARC 90-98: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE C-S ZONE (173 CROSS STREET) council g, ,g ,9g
j acEnaa Repout
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Be Jonas,Community Development Director d
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's approval of Project Application No. ARC 90-
98: Architectural review of a 5,000 square foot service commercial building in the C-S zone
(173 Cross Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the. appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission's action to approve the 5,000 square foot service commercial building, based on
findings made by the ARC and consistency with the City's Architectural Review Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Background/Situation
On January 16, 1996, the City Council approved Tract 2202 (also known as TK Commercial
Park), a 20-lot services and manufacturing subdivision. To reduce the number of driveways in
this small lot subdivision, common driveway easements were required as a condition of
approval for this subdivision(see Attachment 4, Subdivision map). Some of the easements have
been relocated and redesigned with the concurrence of affected property owners. The common
driveway easements, as they were originally approved, are 30 feet wide and 20 feet deep.
On May 13, 1998,the Community Development Department received an application from Steve
and Lisa Hoyt for architectural review of a two story, 5,000 square foot service commercial
building in the TK Commercial Park. Project plans (see Attachment 5, Hoyt site plan) showed
the building at the front of the site, parking in the rear, and access from Cross Street by way of a
driveway that is also used to provide emergency access to an adjoining parcel located adjacent
to and south of the project site. The site design noted the existence of a common driveway
easement in the northwest comer of the site, but did not utilize the easement for site access.
On June 3, 1998, the Community Development Department received an application from
Pankey/DeLucia etal for architectural review of a service commercial development consisting of
5 buildings on 5 lots just west of and adjacent to the Hoyt project Project plans called for two
driveways on Cross Street including the use of the common driveway with the Hoyt property.
Unfortunately,as illustrated on Mr. DeLucia's plans (see Attachment 6, DeLucia site plan),a 20
foot common driveway easement is not deep enough to allow vehicles to access his site. To
Hoyt Appeal(ARC 9.. .8)
Page 2
accommodate the applicant's design, an additional area (28 feet deep and 15 feet wide) is
needed on the Hoyt property.
The Pankey/DeLucia project however is not required to utilize the established common
driveway easement. If the Pankey/DeLucia project is not able to obtain:the.additional easement
area needed to accommodate their design, the following options are available:
.1. Eliminate the driveway and utilize the other project Cross Street driveway for site access.
2. Relocate the driveway on site to accommodate the project's circulation needs. This option
will result in the loss of one or more parking spaces.
3. Reduce the driveway width and obtain a 5 foot wide easement next to the Hoyt building to
accommodate on site circulation(see Attachment 7,Alternative driveway design).
Option #3 was presented by Pults and Associates (Mr. DeLucia's architect) during the project
review process. It is staff's understanding that at one point both parties agreed to the alternative
design.
On July 6, 1998, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the Hoyt project design and
voted 3 to 1 (two Commissioners were absent and one refrained from participating due to a
potential conflict of interest) to approve the project as recommended by staff based on findings
and subject to conditions and code requirements (see Attachment 8 and 9, ARC staff report and
meeting minutes). The Commission discussed the common driveway easement and felt that it
was an issue that should be worked out between the property owners. They liked the site design
with the building up front and parking behind and did not want to require the project to be
redesigned with parking up front in order to accommodate the Pankey/DeLucia design.
On July 15, 1998, Joseph E. DeLucia appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action
to approve the project (see Attachment 10, Appeal letter). The appeal appears to be based on
two issues: 1) ARC approval that allowed use of a driveway that is also used to provide
emergency access to an adjoining parcel, and 2) Mr. DeLucia's inability to utilize the existing'
driveway easement as he had intended.
EVALUATION
City staff has reviewed the documents establishing the mini-storage emergency access easement
and has found no restrictions which would limit Mr. Hoyt's use of the easement as proposed.
Additionally, City staff believes that the Hoyt site design provides the common driveway
easement as required per the subdivision map and cannot require the dedication of additional
land to accommodate the neighboring Pankey/DeLucia site design. Given these facts, staff
recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Architectural Review
Commission. The issue of additional easement area to accommodate the adjoining
development, remains a private matter between the two property owners and the TK subdivider
to work out.
�^a
Hoyt.Appeal (ARC 90--
Page
0 Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal and denying the project,based on findings.
.2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attachments:
1: Resolution A,denying appeal
2. Resolution B,upholding appeal
3. Vicinity map
4: TK subdivision map'
5. Hoyt site plan
6. Pankey/DeLucia site plan
7. Alternative driveway design
8. ARC staff report
9. ARC meeting minutes
10. Appeal letter
Enclosed in Council packets: Project plans
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONMMION'S
ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF
A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 173 CROSS
STREET (ARC 90-98)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that mitigation measures established for
the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and Tract 2202 (ER 74-95)'adequately address the
potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of a service
commercial building at this location.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION L. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of project plans for ARC
90-98 and the Architectural Review Commission's recommendations, public testimony, the
appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
finding:
1. The project is appropriate in this service commercial setting, will be compatible with
surrounding development and will contribute to the quality of life in San Luis Obispo
consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines.
SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal is hereby denied, and the request for a 5,000 square
foot service commercial building is approved subject to the following conditions, mitigation
measures and code requirements:
Conditions
1. The following items shall return to staff for review and approval as part of the building
permit plan check process:
• Refinements to the landscape plan which indicate berming and/or additional plant
materials along the project's street frontage, relocation of the trash enclosure to allow
landscaping to be located on the parking lot side of the trash enclosure and within the area
currently identified as bicycle parking, and the provision of one street tree for every 35
linear feet of street frontage. Bradford Pear shall be indicated on Cross Street.
• A site lighting plan, including photometrics, and parking lot standards that are a
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
maximum of 20 feet in height from ground to top of fixture, and fixtures with down-type
lights and shields, preferably with metal halide lamps (maximum illumination levels at
the ground below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 luxes under the fixture and 3
luxes at the dimmest point).
2. Pursuant to the City's parking and driveway standards,locate a curb along the east side of the
existing emergency access road.
3. .An accessible path of travel from the public street shall be provided. The driveway may be
used as the pathway so long as the driveway surface meets access standards for slope in the
direction of travel and cross slope. The pathway shall connect with the front entry walkway
via a curb ramp, pathway may not go behind parked cars. If the driveway does not meet
access standards by way of the above method, a separate walkway connecting to the public
sidewalk will be required.
4. An"avigation easement"was recorded simultaneously with Tract 2202-Unit 1 which covered
both units of Tract 2202. However, when Tract 2202-2 recorded, the map did not note the
previously recorded easement. Staff believes the separate document still prevails for both
units. However, you may wish to check the title report for each lot to see if it reflects the
easement. If you find it listed, that should resolve the issue for all of the lots in both units.
Otherwise, a new document would need to be recorded for that unit.
5. It appears that the new commercial buildings have the potential to be converted to
condominium units at some point in the future. The owner should consider this possibility
and the associated separation of water and other utility services to each potential unit (A
common sewer can be allowed). Uniform Plumbing Code standards and City policies would
require separate utility services to all condominium units.
6. The Public Works Dept. recommends the property owner work cooperatively with the owner
of the adjacent westerly property to resolve the common driveway issues. Public works staff
suggests a new driveway alignment for the adjacent property. The new alignment would
allow for quitclaiming of a portion of the existing easement within the subject property in
exchange for dedication of a narrow access easement alongside the proposed Hoyt building.
7. Long-term storage for two (2) bicycles shall be provided, one for each lease space. Bicycle
lockers or an enclosed lockable room within each lease space that is reserved for bicycle
storage are two options for meeting this condition. If bicycle lockers are used, the space in
the parking lot currently show for a bicycle rack is an appropriate location.
8. Short-term parking shall be provided, one (1) for each lease space. A single inverted "U"
bike rack should be installed close to the entrance to the ground floor office space,
recommended in the proposed planter area adjoining the entrance to the waiting-reception
area A second rack should be installed close to the stairway entrance to the second floor
yg
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
lease space. (Note: the bike rack location across the parking lot adjoining the trash enclosure
shown on the plans is too remote from the use as short-term parking.)
9. Pursuant to the Building Code, final first floor exit separation shall not exceed%diagonal.
10. There is an existing agreement for these and other specific lots to utilize a common well for
irrigation of the perimeter parkway landscaping and within those lots. If this is used, double
check assemblies will be required on public metered services. Each lot shall maintain its own
water service,unless the lots are combined.
I.I. The property owner shall be responsible for providing a running total of the site's parking
requirements and allocations with the submittal of and Planning or Building permits for
tenant improvements.
12.Mechanical equipment shall be screened with plant or building. materials and colors
complimentary to the building.
Mitieation Measures
1. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150-
feet of the object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a copy of the title report for the property documenting a
recorded avigation easement on the property or the property owner shall grant an updated
avigation easement to the County of'San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document
available at the Community Development Department. The applicant shall provide the
Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation
purposes. Note: The process of granting an easement takes approximately one month
therefore it is recommended that the applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible
3. Site improvements shall conform with recommendations in the approved soils engineering
report to offset the effects of expansive soils.
4. Consistent with grading standards in the Uniform Building Code, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted,protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management
plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of the project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas(at least twice daily with complete coverage
of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
y-0
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 4
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off
site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;and
f. Use of non-potable water is required in all construction and dust control work.
5. All PM,o mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. The
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program consistent
with APCD guidelines and shall provide the contact name(s)and telephone number(s)to the
Community Development Department prior to permit issuance.
6. Site development shall include measures to ra nimize negative impacts to air quality,such as:
a. Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
b. A carpool/rideshare/public-transit information bulletin board installed in a visually
prominent and easily accessible location.
c. Weatherproof and lockable bicycle storagefor employees,as well as short-term bicycle
parking racks for customer use.
7. The construction project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
materials, such as concrete, sheetrock,wood, and metals, from the construction site. The
plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the
Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance.
8. Site development where possible shall incorporate:
a. Skylights or other mechanisms to maximize.natural daylighting.
b. Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
c. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
d. Facilities for on-site recycling.
-9. The use of materials- especially in the roof-shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use
of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited.
Code Requirements
1. A water allocation is required for the new building. Currently, a water allocation can only be
obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can
help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water
Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter
serving the parcel.
yw 7
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 5
3. The uses in each of the proposed units is not clear. The applicant shall contact the City's
Industrial Waste Coordinator, Dale Karns, at 781-7425, for requirements relating to
hazardous materials and wastewater pretreatment requirements.
4. Additional requirements will be imposed if the site is to be served by a well.
5. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of August, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Acting City Clerk Kim Condon
APPROVED:
City Attorney Je orgensen
y g
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS
ACTION, THEREBY DENYING THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A
59000 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 173 CROSS STREET
(ARC 90-98)
WHEREAS,=tfie&6 Council conducted a public_ hearing on August 18, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that mitigation measures established for
the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and Tract 2202 (ER 74-95) adequately address the
potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of a service
commercial building at this location.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of project plans for ARC
90-98 and the Architectural Review Commission's recommendations, public testimony, the
appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
finding:
1. The location of the-proposed service commercial building will adversely affect the health,
safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because its
location does not provide adequate use of the existing common driveway easement.
2. The project will not be compatible with surrounding development because it does not
provide use of the common driveway easement in a manner compatible to that approved on
Lot 18 per ARC 103-98.
SECTION 2. Approval. The appeal is hereby approved, and the request for a 5,000
square foot service commercial building is denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of August, 1998.
Resolution.No:. (1998 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Acting City Clerk Kim Condon
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
-10
Attachment 3
btfl',�Y
f L •".i ! V N •�i
gW
i ;[fis��= ( � = .eWr—.it �¢ ii . e ez nom--ki-f IM a C @- 11 tt(t rdz !l�rg� -. C 100- - V
ea��SN^ __......._..... r.. .................
moi rs�� V01 +. -
Lo
COD
m
c •7 :I a r..
I' •� - � 'F'ri � •III?;
5,
gal
CC
N
i Iz r LO
Lo
I T O
I f E is a`�� o
LL ,f F 016E 416E 816E 286E 986£ 886E
i LL6£ LS6E •a 4`
lz,.
:3 I_Ot 77rf r " •Y .f' r�•' r.,,y , Ij7
�stMlf_� - '! g .yie Ob •'rw„ �` T fll•�
IIIIII .• `"��' 'ti•
4
Attachment 4
_ 1 ft3• s
as
� r
` _ r -f• • wT f ,tt _.3� t.
• • .••• 1� tx•'•' • ��II�� sli7 S w Y� f Y a .,,,.��OCN:.:..�.•.+ •.}l
3 - ^t lr d ssQ tie c /a Mra'. '�'.� Sf '
Sid. �R.S s 4 : U•-+ t i
•� ��1s[ �•�,':
gt
Ilia: iE
- •Ill
,ll � i i �I •
I ....
,.._._................ .............
.. .. ,I ..... ..... ....._...... .._.._.....,fir:
• .. �- — • Y!•! mel �'— — ��. '
am .• —oar �-r— F�ma�:.wt ---------�•----- ..tis I .
�.ta`1 �----�,aAai11U` .'ll G••jr_':..j:::.��'
t�'I�• .�a�• Y� `` •YI 1 j••�'. !ice 1� �1RSt•'t� } • �•, i
:.:.;. �s: �. ►a
n .• ��rti��e-- -1 it l.:�
fit
ZA
j IID• I — I' �` I g'SrQ �[I L— .�•:�•.���� •�//
• I �`•�'--- F r -1
yh -. Se `'"':•_mac; ':.^t►s: 2>.j =r_, ��t•� III[1
• _ .r j• _ : =oa = • j - F 3-4 I
. � ,.� 1 ': ... _ — r ilk � ,:'\y /. .� .:`:'.._�•� .� i 'r�� .
81
IN
Oxx
:..�.• 6 I: j ` � �• I II
r !��f1.. Iii I_ 1 // �s -•` 1•I J
':\�G`\-1 1 ��; 1 • ii '``- .. .til _ _ et y � I II�j� .
a 3 1
qhs;:lire �=� i ' .ti • J` 3
1111 i ' •' z i �•. ��.�s. a
Attachment 5
to �mrt st..•e..l I .
$11t
---------------._ _-
C r••e___ sere•a _ ___ !
t
t I
t , t e.ae air V 1 f op 0.
Lim �.A
13.
13
e ,
--I-
I I
I I
rr
101
® ero a�ljl {
1
,m m .d
•s I
=1 ny
A 1 1
I
1
t
Y Iwl
.. •11^a of a,t.r+ryeID7 aw {
e:i • eatk4 I
tr-C
•�.ar >I e•e a ar .
3,57
1
I
� .•sy I
1 Irwl� I ,
I I
I ,rr I 1
I
• 1
�• M orae'? - 17. Oft ta•.a+.as
ON&
Plan Site Clan
4
a Attachment 6 \
133H1S 1210HS
: .. . .-Uq7T
V1 I A j
,
v 1:
1
9e I V
a
Cd�ttytb�l �•. '
• ye r i
r.
T � iJl Jt
• � I
I
fir(/•! /
/ f `
I vUrA*
1 1
W\
S
N IL m
1 I�
1
i ;
>
s:
riv
!T.-.•i.�:'•.w^�,jyj,, d`..,:. a =: -� Attachment 7
1 r..L".�+`�.••'.Ma'.'• ,kms'- :w-' ! 4Xi�•."` ..
s. 1 ;,. �...,.'.
ZNSWA( f
r �-:::•, yes• ;, .}. _ f-^,..:_ _:. r.• : - I
} �� i r:n'.T,'y •IL: 2•'r ... ..i' .� :i I
'-rM�T}•-•,:,S.�I,. T�~ ;fi'. a:. ' 1 �,.- f•.!'t4 I:_ .. :aiw-U.,a��� _. ..
TM
=' tai ?'�� :7ti� !' •-.4- .f vT:�v�r� '.=� : .i,\�L. -.;
V.
Pa fa a e / a..3/. .Ir�'c�•�y' 4t: .'.'.i." 5103 ...!'.
.. . ... _ - a,�a;.;,.; - _ ������•INVL 2338
♦ � ... .. CEJ ::�-fi-• � ��I C..�- T• _v.�T,iOJ•,�•.•;. _may::: t.�:,-:,,.-��.�,•'.�
Ilk
.,— .•9•'.
2 `Q +• ear....-.�.��••1. 4 �., -
VjlQ mid
/. jt. .:�i•:f wr , _
. -S' tip.: L:' ,•aw 5:�:-•:+�: '•�.: .:;
/ �� _ :._,, •,:; Proposed B
dl(� 'lT �, }
f.7 tf Wit.: .Z'�rf��• •.'�•_• •. Sw..�._. •... � , �. .,.� .
OF
:�;.y-:� 4:. YI C`• _ t'ro`ll.;,, t__�J y. ,M �. .�T• ;`: .
�/ :.i.. w.M. `:..rte :S :vim rtK�Y:�1e�; �i r�.:�,�•,... �+-�
�-Pr.'s:.'.•\F"•!• Y: �� •4J, .���I�•r .R �..-. . -.� %, �� —_ 4-
}:YTI.�� __ _.x:�,�p _• ._�•%-t. l'_T. S�l�=��Y�� ••�i v... �S i� _' �1
/T JV}.' '�-•`Y.._ SIL: `2 - .: ��-1��i -.''• �••.�•� _ a•_ ; „ • � .�wf
Attachment 8
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rMM# 3
BY: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998
FROM. Ron Wh'i'senand,Development Review Manag6
FILE NUMBER: ARC 90-98
PROJECT ADDRESS: 173 Cross Street
SUBJECT: Review of plans for a service commercial building in the C-S zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, mitigation
measures and code requirements outlined in the staff recommendation at the end of this report.
BACKGROUND:
On January 16, 1996 the City Council approved Tract 2202 (also known as TK Commercial
Park), a 20-lot services and manufacturing subdivision. Other development plans ARC has
reviewed in this subdivision include Foods 4 Less, Pago Trust, and the Markoff veterinary
hospital.
Data Summary
Address: 173 Cross Street
Applicant: Environmental Analytical Service/Hoyt
Zoning: C-S; Service-Commercial
General Plan: Services&Manufacturing
Environmental Status: Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning
(ER 53-94) and Tract 2202 (ER 74-95) adequately address the potential impacts resulting
from construction and operation of a commercial service building at this location.
Project Action Deadline: August 13, 1998
Site Description
The undeveloped site contains 14,470 s.f and is relatively flat. The property has frontage on
Cross Street and backs up to the existing mini-storage development. A common driveway access
easement is located in the northwest corner of the site.
Proiect Description
The applicant is requesting final ARC approval of plans to develop a service commercial
building. Interior improvements are shown for the building with the exception of a lease space
located on the second floor. Attached to this report is a listing of allowed service commercial
4�
ARC 90-98,Hoyt
Page 2
uses to give the ARC an idea of possible types of tenants.
EVALUATION
Site Design
The applicant proposes to locate the building in the northwest comer of the site (outside of the
common access easement), locate parking behind the building and utilize an existing emergency
access driveway on the east side of the site for site access. Plans submitted for the property to
the west indicate a building at the back of the lot and use of the common driveway (see attached
Cross Street site plan and letter submitted by Joe DeLucia).
Parlting
A total of 16 parking spaces are provided which equals one space for every 310 s.f. of floor area.
In accordance with City standards, the applicant can propose a 10% reduction (1 space) by
providing additional bicycle parking. To ensure that the development does not become
underparked, the property owner should be responsible for providing a running total of the site's
parking requirements with the submittal of any building permit for tenant improvements.
Bicycle parking has been provided at the back of the lot in front of the trash enclosure. Staff
recommends that bicycle parking be relocated closer to the building entries.
Building Desi Color
The project design includes pink/beige stucco, grey window frames, and light green tinted
windows. An overhang is located above the main building entry. Staff believes the design is
typical of the type of development that is expected within this subdivision. A color and materials
board will be available for review at the ARC meeting.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan contains a variety of plant materials of different forms and sizes to create
an interesting three-dimensional presentation. Staff recommends that additional plant materials
and/or mounding be located along the Cross Street frontage for visual interest. Additionally, staff
recommends that the trash enclosure be moved approximately 2 feet to the south to allow
landscaping on the visible side of the trash enclosure and that the area indicated for short-term
bicycle parking be replaced with landscaping.
Lighting and Signage
At this time no outdoor lighting or signage has been proposed. Staff suggests that lighting return
to staff for approval. Photometrics should accompany lighting plans to corroborate the number
and spacing of standards. Parking lot standards should be a maximum height of 20 feet from
ground to top of fixture, and fixtures should be down-type lights with shields, preferably with
metal halide lamps and have a max. illumination of 10 footcandles measured at ground level.
Environmental Review
Previous environmental documents covering this property adequately address the potential
impacts resulting from construction and operation of a warehouse building at this location. The
required mitigation measures have been incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure that the
property owner is made aware of the requirements.
ARC 90-98,Hoyt
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant schematic approval with direction on items to return to the Commission with final
review of plans.
2. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired
information or needed revisions to plans.
3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments from other department shave been incorporated into conditions of approval and
code requirements noted below.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Findings
1. The project is appropriate in this service commercial setting, will be compatible with
surrounding development and will contribute to the quality of life in San Luis Obispo
consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines.
2. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and Tract
2202 (ER 7495) adequately address potential impacts resulting from construction and
operation of a service commercial warehouse building at this location.
Conditions
1. The following items shall return to staff for review and approval as part of the building
permit plan check process:
• Refinements to the landscape plan which indicate berming and/or additional plant
materials along the project's street frontage, relocation of the trash enclosure to allow
landscaping to be located on the parking lot side of the trash enclosure and within the area
currently identified as bicycle parking, and the provision of one street tree for every 35
linear feet of street frontage. Bradford Pear shall be indicated on Cross Street.
• A site lighting plan, including photometrics, and parking lot standards that are a
maximum of 20 feet in height from ground to top of fixture, and fixtures with down-type
lights and shields, preferably with metal halide lamps (maximum illumination levels at
the ground below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 luxes under the fixture and 3
luxes at the dimmest point).
2. Pursuant to the City's parking and driveway standards, locate a curb along the east side of the
existing emergency access road.
y/�
ARC 90-98, Hoyt
Page 4
3. An accessible path of travel from the public street shall be provided. The driveway may be
used as the pathway so long as the driveway surface meets access standards for slope in the
direction of travel and cross slope. The pathway shall connect with the front entry walkway
via a curb ramp, pathway may not go behind parked cars. If the driveway does not meet
access standards by way of the above method, a separate walkway connecting to the public
sidewalk will be required.
4. An"avigation easement"was recorded simultaneously with Tract 2202-Unit 1 which covered
both units of Tract 2202. However, when Tract 2202-2 recorded, the map did not note the
previously recorded easement. Staff believes the separate document still prevails for both
units. However,you may wish to check the title report for each lot to see if it reflects the
easement. If you find it listed, that should resolve the issue for all of the lots in both units.
Otherwise, a new document would need to be recorded for that unit.
S. It appears that the new commercial buildings have the potential to be converted to
condominium units at some point in the future. The owner should consider this possibility
and the associated separation of water and other utility services to each potential unit (A
common sewer can be allowed). Uniform Plumbing Code standards and City policies would
require separate utility services to all condominium units.
6. The Public Works Dept. recommends the property owner work cooperatively with the owner
of the adjacent westerly property to resolve the common driveway issues. Public works staff
suggests a new driveway alignment for the adjacent property. The new alignment would
allow for quitclaiming of a portion of the existing easement within the subject property in
exchange for dedication of a narrow access easement alongside the proposed Hoyt building.
7. Long-term storage for two (2) bicycles shall be provided, one for each lease space. Bicycle
lockers or an enclosed lockable room within each lease space that is reserved for bicycle
storage are two options for meeting this condition. If bicycle lockers are used, the space in
the parking lot currently show for a bicycle rack is an appropriate location.
8. Short-term parking shall be provided, one (1) for each lease space. A single inverted "U"
bike rack should be installed close to the entrance to the ground floor office space,
recommended in the proposed planter area adjoining the entrance to the waiting-reception
area. A second rack should be installed close to the stairway entrance to the second floor
lease space. (Note: the bike rack location across the parking lot adjoining the trash enclosure
shown on the plans is too remote from the use as short-term parking.)
9. Pursuant to the Building Code,final first floor exit separation shall not exceed %z diagonal.
10. There is an existing agreement for these and other specific lots to utilize a common well for
irrigation of the perimeter parkway landscaping and within those lots. If this is used, double
check assemblies will be required on public metered services. Each lot shall maintain its own
water service,unless the lots are combined.
ARC 90-98,Hoyt
Page 5
11. The property owner shall be responsible for providing a running total of the site's parking
requirements and allocations with the submittal of and Planning or Building permits for
tenant improvements.
12. Mechanical equipment shall be screened with plant or building materials and colors
complimentary to the building.
Mitigation Measures
1. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150-
feet of the object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a copy of the title report for the property documenting a
recorded avigation easement on the property or the property owner shall grant an updated
avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document
available at the Community Development Department. The applicant shall provide the
Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation
purposes. Note: The process of granting an easement takes annroximately one month,
therefore it is recommended that the applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible.
3. Site improvements shall conform with recommendations in the approved soils engineering
report to offset the effects of expansive soils.
4. Consistent with grading standards in the Uniform Building Code, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted,protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management
plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of the project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage
of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off
site;
e. Watering material stockpiles; and
f. Use of non-potable water is required in all construction and dust control work.
5. All PM,a mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. The
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program consistent
with APCD guidelines and shall provide the contact name(s)and telephone number(s)to the
Community Development Department prior to permit issuance.
6. Site development shall include measures to minimize negative impacts to air quality, such as:
y_�c
ARC 90-98, Hoyt
Page,6
a. Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
b. A carpool/rideshare/public-transit information bulletin board installed in a visually
prominent and easily accessible location.
c. Weatherproof and lockable bicycle storagefor employees,as well as short-term bicycle
parking racks for customer use.
7. The construction project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
materials, such as concrete, sheetrock,wood,and metals,from the construction site. The
plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the
Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance.
8. Site development where possible shall incorporate:
a. Skylights or other mechanisms to maximize natural daylighting.
b. Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
c. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
d. Facilities for on-site recycling.
9. The use of materials- especially in the roof- shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use
of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited.
Code Requirements
1. A water allocation is required for the new building. Currently, a water allocation can only be
obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can
help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water
Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter
serving the parcel.
3. The uses in each of the proposed units is not clear. The applicant shall contact the City's
Industrial Waste Coordinator, Dale Karns, at 781-7425, for requirements relating to
hazardous materials and wastewater pretreatment requirements.
4. Additional requirements will be imposed if the site is to be served by a well.
5. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Attached: Cross Street site plan
Letter from Joe DeLucia
Service Commercial zone allowed uses
Project plans(included in ARC packets)
2/
Attachment 9
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 8
NOES: None
ABSENT: Illingworth,Loh ....
The motion passed.
3. ARC 90-98: 173 Cross Street: Review of a proposed 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building
and site improvements; C-S zone; Steve and Lisa Hoyt,applicants.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval to the
project,based on findings, and subject to conditions,mitigation measures and code requirements.
Mark Rawson abstained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mike Peachey, APS, 592 Stoneridge, mentioned a letter outlining efforts to work out the
driveway design and location. He had no issues with staffs recommendations.
Commr. Parker asked Mike Peachey about the colors and if they were the applicant's choice.
Mike Peachey said yes they were.
Commr. Stevenson asked if glazing was a tint. Mike Peachey said yes.
Joe Delucia, 1042 Palm, liked the ARC's consideration of rationale for locations of common
driveway's with review of the tract map. He was not in agreement with the revised location for
the driveways. He said five properties show complying access and would be compromised by
this change. He felt the item should either be postponed until July 20th, approved with condition
#6 and try to work out the issues or deny it. There are some concessions that he and his partners
are willing to make.
Commr. Parker asked what flipping the site plan would do. Mike Peachey responded it would
lose about 1/3 of the windows.
Commr. Parker noted that the size of the lots and locations of common access easements really
set the development pattern with buildings at the rear and parking in front (to allow for
maximum development).
Joe Delucia reiterated points in his letter.
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 9
Steve Hoyt, applicant, pointed out that the purchase price of the site included an emergency
access road on the east. He noted that parking at the rear is important for his business. He said
there was no real proposal from Joe Delucia regarding driveway alteratives.
Commr. Stevenson asked about reducing the width of the emergency access road to provide
additional design opportunities.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, stated that they would need to negotiate with
another property owner to explore changes to the emergency access drive.
Commr. Parker asked if a change to the emergency access was okay with the applicant.
Steve Hoyt said he was not opposed to that idea,but concerned with project delays.
Commr. Stevenson noted he would like to postpone to review with adjacent project. He liked the
parking behind the buildings. He said there may be opportunities for continuation of rear access
from east to also serve the adjacent development. He suggested a more comprehensive approach
to access.
Commr. Parker said he didn't have a problem with the building architecture and colors. He
thought projects shouldn't be reviewed in a vacuum. He liked the opportunity to review projects
together. He felt there should be more discussion of site planning.
Commr. Regier felt that given the situation,they should look for a solution that doesn't delay the
Hoyts. He suggested exploring a narrower width for the emergency access. He supported the
building architecture and the colors.
Commr. Aiken said the building design was nice and the colors are interesting. He felt the only
real issue is the relationship with the adjacent property and the driveway situation. He supported
continuing the item to the next meeting.
Commr. Stevenson recommended exploring the common driveway with the adjacent property
and parking in the rear.
There was a general discussion about potential maintenance and circulation issues with changes
to site planning for the TK 5 project. Joe Delucia brought up concerns with compensation
because of changes to access locations.
Commr. Stevenson felt the project approval should proceed.
y z3
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 10
Steve Hoyt stated he was willing to work with Joe Delucia on easement changes. He doesn't
want the project to be held up.
Commr. Stevenson moved to grant final approval to the project,based on the following findings,
reaffirming mitigation measures,and subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Findines
1. The project is appropriate in this service commercial setting, will be compatible with
surrounding development and will contribute to the quality of life in San Luis Obispo
consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines.
2. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning.(ER 53-94) and Tract
2202 (ER' 74-95) adequately address potential impacts resulting from construction and
operation of a service commercial warehouse building at this location.
Conditions
1. The following items shallreturn to staff for review and approval as part of the building
permit plan check process:
• Refinements to the landscape plan which indicate berming and/or additional plant
materials along the project's street frontage, relocation of the trash enclosure to allow
landscaping to be located on the parking lot side of the trash enclosure and within the area
currently identified as bicycle parking, and the provision of one street tree for every 35
linear feet of street frontage. Bradford Pear shall be indicated on Cross Street
• A site lighting plan, including photometrics, and parking lot standards that are a
maY;mum of 20 feet in height from ground to top of fixture, and fixtures with down-type
lights and shields, preferably with metal halide lamps (maximum illumination levels at
the ground below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 luxes under the fixture and 3
luxes at the dimmest point).
2. Pursuant to the City's parking and driveway standards, locate a curb along the east side of the
existing emergency access road.
3. An accessible path of travel from the public street shall be provided. The driveway may be
used as the pathway so long as the driveway surface meets access standards for slope in the
direction of travel and cross slope. The pathway shall connect with the front entry walkway
via a curb ramp, pathway may not go behind parked cars. If the driveway does not meet
access standards by way of the above method, a separate walkway connecting to the public
sidewalk will be required.
L7/_2 S
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 11
4. An"avigation easement"was recorded simultaneously with Tract 2202-Unit 1 which covered
both units of Tract 2202. However, when Tract 2202-2 recorded, the map did not note the
previously recorded easement. Staff believes the separate document still prevails for both
units. However, you may wish to check the title report for each lot to see if it reflects the
easement. If you find it listed, that should resolve the,issue for all of the lots in both units.
Otherwise, a new document would need to be recorded for that unit.
5. It appears that the new commercial buildings have the potential to be converted to
condominium units at some point in the future. The owner should consider this possibility
and the associated separation of water and other utility services to each potential unit (A
common sewer can be allowed). Uniform Plumbing Code standards and City policies would
require separate utility services to all condominium units.
6. The Public Works Dept. recommends the property owner work cooperatively with the owner
of the adjacent westerly property to resolve the common driveway issues. Public works staff
suggests a new driveway alignment for the adjacent property. The new alignment would
allow for quitclaiming of a portion of the existing easement within the subject property in
exchange for dedication of a narrow access easement alongside the proposed Hoyt building.
7. Long-term storage for two (2) bicycles shall be provided, one for each lease space. Bicycle
lockers or an enclosed lockable room within each lease space that is reserved for bicycle
storage are two options for meeting this condition. If bicycle lockers are used, the space in
the parking lot currently show for a bicycle rack is an appropriate location.
S. Short-tern parking shall be provided, one (1) for each lease space. A single inverted "U"
bike rack should be installed close to the entrance to the ground floor office space,
recommended in the proposed planter area adjoining the entrance to the waiting-reception
area. A second rack should be installed close to the stairway entrance to the second floor
lease space. (Note: the bice rack location across the parking lot adjoining the trash enclosure
shown on the plans is too remote from the use as short-term parking.)
9. Pursuant to the Building Code, final first floor exit separation shall not exceed ''/z diagonal.
10. There is an existing agreement for these and other specific lots to utilize a common well for
irrigation of the perimeter parkway landscaping and within those lots. If this is used, double
check assemblies will be required on public metered services. Each lot shall maintain its own
water service,unless the lots are combined.
11. The property owner shall be responsible for providing a running total of the site's parking
requirements and allocations with the submittal of and Planning or Building permits for
y zs
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 12
tenant improvements.
12. Mechanical equipment shall be screened with plant or building materials and colors
complimentary to the building.
Mitigation Measures
1. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150-
feet of the object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a copy.of the title report for the property documenting a
recorded avigation easement on the property or the property owner shall grant an updated
avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document
available at the Community Development Department. The applicant shall provide the
Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation
purposes. Note: The process of granting an easement takes approximately one month.
therefore it is recommended that the applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible.
3. Site improvements shall conform with recommendations in the approved soils engineering
report to offset the effects of expansive soils.
4. Consistent with grading standards in the Uniform Building Code, all graded surfaces shall be.
wetted,protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management
plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of the project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas(at least twice daily with complete coverage
of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off
site;
e. Watering material stockpiles; and
f. Use of non-potable water is required in all construction and dust control work.
5. All PM,,mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. The
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program consistent
with APCD guidelines and shall provide the contact name(s)and telephone number(s)to the
ARC Minutes
July 6, 1998
Page 13
Community Development Department prior to permit issuance.
6. Site development shall include measures to minimise negative impacts to air quality,such as:
a. Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
b. A carpool/rideshare/public-transit information bulletin board installed in a visually
prominent and easily accessible location.
c. Weatherproof and lockable bicycle storage for employees, as well as short-term bicycle
parking racks for customer use.
7. The construction project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
materials, such as concrete, sheetrock,wood, and metals, from the construction site. The
plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the
Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance.
8. Site development where possible shall incorporate:
a. Skylights or other mechanisms to maximize natural daylighting.
b. Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
c. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
d. Facilities for on-site recycling.
9. The use of materials-especially in the roof- shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use
of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited.
Code Requirements
1. A water allocation is required for the new building. Currently, a water allocation can only be
obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can
help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water
Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter
serving the parcel.
3. The uses in each of the proposed units is not clear. The applicant shall contact the City's
Industrial Waste Coordinator, Dale Karns, at 781-7425, for requirements relating to
hazardous materials and wastewater pretreatment requirements.
4. Additional requirements will be imposed if the site is to be served by a well.
y�:
ARC Minutes
July 6. 1998
Page 14
5. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Commr. Regier seconded the motion.
AYES: Stevenson, Regier,Aiken
NOES: Parker
ABSENT: Illingworth,Loh
ABSTAIN: Rawson
The motion passed.
4. ARC 96-98: 3988 Short Street: Review of a 24,00 sq. ft. commercial building and site
improvements on four lots; C-S zone; Larry Kreu pf,applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff r port, recommending final approval to the
project, based on findings,and subject to conditions mitigation measures and code requirements.
Garth Kornreich, architect, stated that developin four lots at a time allowed for more efficient
site and parking design. He noted that wider s s were used to enable narrower bay width in the
parking lot. He felt the parking would work; exibility with multiple lots and a wider range of
Tenants. There will be office areas over the ork spaces with the second level. He explained the
green canopies were to coordinate with Fo d 4 Less and changes in colors were to add interest
and break up mass. He supported the b ' dings along the street with parking in the rear where
feasible and felt this would be probable ere because of depth of the lots. He said it was a good
opportunity to go back to back with the orage unit buildings to the rear.
Ron Whisenand, Development Revi Manager, explained staffs concerns with parking and the
reasons for it.
Commr. Aiken had concerns only one trash enclosure for all four lots. He felt they should
have at a minimum two small trash enclosures.
Commr. Parker suggested oking at a more centrally located trash enclosure. He liked the
changes in textures to bre up mass and colors.
Commr. Regier con with Commr. Parker.
Joseph E. DeLucia
Commercial Real Estate Services R
P.O. Boa 1286 �� FCF
San Lois Obispo, CA 93406-1286 � I
(sos� 781 -2500 c0"'O.C- � 6 1999
LF�OpB�sP
July 15,-1998
Ms. Peggy Mandeville
Associate Planner
990 Pahn Street
City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
RE: Appeal ARC Hearing 90-98
Steven&Lisa Hoyt
173 Cross Street, 5,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial
Dear Ms. Mandeville,
I desire to appeal the above described action that was approved at the ARC hearing
described above. I am the purchaser of the lot immediately adjacent to the described property.
The reasons for my appeal are as follows:
1. All testimony and evidence that was presented at the hearing which is recorded of record
in the official tapes of said hearing.
2. All of the conditions that are included in the attached letter that was submitted as part of
the ARC staff report, in my letter dated June 16, 1998.
3. The fact that Hoyt's primary use for access to the site are over an"emergency access
easement", which may be in violation of various access codes and are definitely adverse
to the intentions of primary recipient of the accesss easement. (See attached letter- Mr.
Timm)
4. Other items of evidence that are currently being compiled and will be presented to you
prior to finalizing your staff report relating to this appeal.
V truly y urs,
Jo E. DeLucia
enc.
2/,:z
Jun-16-96 O7 :49A Law _ Y�ces S Raa � Estate BOB Sob 9902
JoaepA E.DeLoda
Commercial Real Estate Services
P.O.Boz 1286 -
San Luis Obispo,C& 93408-1288
(SOS)?81-2600
FAQ 1O;
-
ilda.Peggy MandevilleJune 16,19M
associate Planner 7 VI-7/7,%,
990 Pa>m Street
City ofSanLufs Obispo, Ca. 98401
RE: 14S Crow SL-ARC Application#W95
Dear Us.Mandeville, Steve and Lisa Hoyt
I have a vented interest is the immediately adjacent.property,Lot 1S-Tract 2202 through pa
Where funds Lame been Mewed and escrow Is scheduled to close an July 18,1995. We lave
c
eats „ a prgject for ARC consideration on Lot 18 which bave eo
some potential l nt5r�s which
ve been diaeumed between 7=Woodle(pedis&Associates), Public Works, pad pourCo The
ha
existing driveway easement cmnot be used without further radius inclusion due to sourest set baek
req cola and other planning issues These radius inclusion,are both implied and mandatory to
Proper eonplisace With the Intentions of the approved subdivision. The fact that the ovmesa of
Lot 19 iHoyt's)have unilaterally decided to Ignore thea rights and procure their ir
perms lot Hugh the Tmergerxy Access Easement'presents a serious daemma with amass to a.
public works.
The resolution to the driveway easement,iageea&egress imue.,and other
,not been resolved between the owner of Lot 19 and ourselves. We are dean features have
Public Works ea it relates to the spirit and intent of provision dP.1&2 o parte���e�
Standards aWdled September 1996)TEXT 2060. Therefore,we are hereby requesting that your sten .
report include the fQR0wiag:_
a emfdliet has arises sad ata$is aware that thea is significant potential for eon&ct
other eharacteriseice the driveway because of its location,length.grade,usage,or
We have had several meetmp with the owner's Cioyt)and riser arehiteet�d feel that a mutual
and property
trigcannot be achieved prior to the p(�staff report. Dae to the legal implications
a ProP�Y rights ism at state, we feel that ata$'is obligated to address am oommm Chu
development intended fashioopursuant wUh the AR Cute properties(Lateyaw dispos all have used the driveways is their
app�ona at yenu dispesaL
Very truly,
u
a R Cel ucia
cc; Pulte&Associates
Attn: Tim Woodle
y_3o
07�56/9S 0., .0 S 605903l22 R TTI COMPANY P.02
July g, Igoe
Mr.Joesph Delucla Via Fox; 546.9962
P.O. Box 1286 u
San Luis Obispo CA 93406
iY . ..••.
RE: 40T 18 OF TRACT N0.2202.11 SAN 4UIS 081SP0.
Dear Joe:
Per your request, 1 am outlining the detalls of the our negotiation with Steve Hoyt the
eventual buyer of the above referenood property. ;
We listed the above reforenced property for sale at $139,600.00 and ebld the property
on March 3, 1998 for$126,000.00.The sales price for the property was discounted due
to a request from the Buyer which was based on their anticipated limited use of the
emergency occurs easement on the east side of tho property.
Wig.:
':- It you should have any additional questions, please feet free to call. c
i Sincere .
MikeTlmm .
1: TK development Il
4*1
1"
s
`1
1
' 1
. BT�IBi40 ► .1 C07S��?922 - R0.--t:TTI COMPANY P.00
,tay 9, 199R
Mr.Datroa Drake
1=aa Marshall .
City of Satz Luis Obispo
2160 Santa Benbata Sheet
San I,uPit Obispo, CA 93401.5240
i•
n.. Lot 19 orTract No.2202-1.San Luis Obispo,
wh
•Dear Mr.Drake,
T MIOSW Is a eo afa loiter addressed to the bu
pY ycr oCLot to U,theabove tract.
I am ooncerned with the feet tb$t the project h4 s been approved tltrou8b the ARG level
and must assume that the Fire DepsArncht tris not'addressed the intondgd use of the
common easm*nt as an"FAnergeney Access Rascmnt"only
Our approvals oftllcMW warellousb worn conditt01106 upolt our itttpmving ileo 30'wide
eaMWnt arca to provide for znxrgency Rte access. jU poss bility orkvge truck$or
other vehicles backed up or stalled in this pathway during att ctucrtenoy would be adverse
to-our project. Fm1hm=re, vehlolcs whidt may be in the parkkig lot (possibly 20+),
durals a rngjor Mdent would cause 111039 vehicles to be "locked in"wWle.any emergency
is being contained. This could accentuate the problem, ,
Ploase respond as soon a$possible t
..: Sinpcmly
MIkeTlmm ',
1'Y Dcvolopincat ll
' Yg
{
�4 � h 1 t✓ t. wL. 1,: 7, z - ✓.} t s y'v l:
EF�ING AGENDA s
""` 4 ' r
r^}ti i ♦ ,a , Yi'p -u 1 t �y� ,hJ S{
Jif s+N.� )� Tf _ fr •ilz A[G. ',: i Dbi ) f4 i <. f. ' r' , r. .`<:'-1
y
�. Y'w.. s e c < } r` rh. .fY.'i��:=-y'•' :i-! r.> > , f 4 r `5 t w � Y Yw � its c
:r4 � 7• 4 ) l" ) •xy ." Nit .w ! a -i f� c`')~r ,,�.rl�.��� ',^ y ,
c ✓
EZATTORNEY
OtOD DIR
August 12, 1998 O FIN DIR
g O FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
Allen Settle 0 O POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo Mayor O REC DIR
990 Palm ®
00, O UTIL IR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: APPEAL OF THE ARC APPROVAL OF 173 CROSS STREET IN THE TK
BUSINESS PARK.
Dear Mayor Settle,
I am writing this letter to introduce myself and Environmental Analytical Service. I will
be appearing before the City Council on August 18, 1998 for an appeal of our building
project. This project was approved by the Architectural Review Commission on July 6,
1998, and was appealed by Mr. Joe Delucia who owns the adjoining Lot 18 in the TK
Development.
Environmental Analytical Service, Inc. is an air testing laboratory that I started in 1985 in
San Luis Obispo. We have been located in the city for almost 15 years, and provide air
testing services in San Luis Obispo, and throughout the state and country. In San Luis
Obispo County we have provided air testing services for consultants, attorneys,
homeowners, companies, the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, Cold
Canyon Landfill, and California Air Resources Board (projects in the county). Some
projects that we have provided laboratory services for include:
• Avila Beach Air Monitoring Program
• San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study
• Hydrocarbon Characterization at PSD sites in Santa Barbara County
• Emissions from Small Gasoline Engines (with Cal Poly)
• Casmalia Resources Air Monitoring Program
Last year when I realized that our current lease would be up in August, 1999, I decided to
purchase Lot 19 in the TK Development (on December, 1998) and construct a building
designed for our air testing laboratory. The plans called for access to the back of the
building using the fire easement that was purchased as part of the lot. Originally, the
developer Mike Timm and RRM Associates had told us in their letter of September 30,
1997 that the fire access easement could be used both for access and parking. When we
contacted the Public Works.Department we determined that the easement could not be
used for parking but could be used to access parking in the back of the building. This is
desirable in order to maintain a professional look at the front of the building, have access
RECEIVED�^ 3421 Empresa.Suite A
`ECEIVED San Luis Obispo. CA
93401
Alar, 1 4 1998 905.791.3595
Fa
SLO CITY COUNCIL 906.541-4550
to the production area(laboratory and sample control) which is in the rear of the building,
and allow for ample landscaping. Being an environmental business the extra space for
landscaping, allowed by using the fire easement was one of the reasons that we paid an
additional cost for the easement.
Our plans for a 4750 square foot building constructed of stucco and glass were submitted
and approved by the Architectural Review Commission at its July 6, 1998 meeting. The
findings of the Commission were: "The project is appropriate in this service commercial
setting, will be compatible with surrounding development and will contribute to the
quality of life in San Luis Obispo consistent with goals contained in the City's
Architectural Review Guidelines." I am not a commercial developer, but a business
owner and resident of San Luis Obispo who would like to move an established business
into long term facilities designed for our operations.
If you have any questions about Environmental Analytical Service, or would like to tour
our current facilities please contact me at (805) 781-3585.
4D,. P
.D.
i
- - -M T -
- EFW -
AGEN
...... ...::
..............
. ...... ...
ATE iTEI # WIH
Y .''.
..c r2. .,...i .na• .1:. r vyl i 5,1 ,� f r IZ f 5; 5 h T 1 J.�����Y
N t P Y • Y Y _ 1 � i
1 1 .: (v h e a 5 �u -'� 1 < r v i _5 s� ��,v'J.,..; �v''„ •C'.�a�...a ��'..:.� T 4c''I
r_`t�yr LC] ;'•.. ]x .f Yyl r c.w'' ti Y f o ' �f f"::��',I�.aT���WN. A1C..x� .14�C..r`i t.'.:.
<.. C J r ti [ y1n. .c.° f .. r 1 ,�.�• it:�4?F.::.°:� :.�i.•
•k.a".,.-. - ,�?:.a.���'ti" ,+$.. yvY. .: a� ,^,A. _ ` .s•'�' .•r u:R.'.�. jii:ilr,� ;*rr�:=di :J:";.+ r 3_�'v�,`7;:,
n f!L -� _ _ (:'a - ..1: :.t. ..•J"v ill.. .51'� 1.. M1M1� +•:
.5 r
w r
August, 17, 1998
,COUNCIL 2<DD DIR
Members of the City Council i AO ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo . ❑ FIRE CHIEF
i iORNIE11 ❑ PW DIR
990 Palm Street ❑.CLERKIORI^u ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ h1 Ah1 ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
C3 ❑ PERS DIR
RE: Appeal of 173 Cross Street
Lisa Hoyt and I have submitted plans for the construction of a 4770 square foot building
on Lot 19 for their business Environmental Analytical Service, Inc., an air testing
laboratory that has been located in the City of San Luis Obispo for over 12 years. In our
plan, we have chosen to access our parking area from the driveway that is also used to
provide emergency access to an adjoining property. The driveway was purchased from
Mike Timm, the adjoining property owner(also an owner in the TK Development) as part
of the Lot 19 sale. We had paid extra for the easement to obtain this extra space to use as
a driveway for our building. Our wishes were made known to the Development Company
at the time, as we negotiated over the price and what the access could be used for (Sept.
30, 1998 letter from RRM Design Group representing TK Development). Being an
environmental business, the extra space for landscaping, allowed by this arrangement,
was one of the reasons that we paid-an additional cost for this lot. It has always been our
intention to work with our neighbors on Lot 18 to develop the common driveway
easement area.
The appeal seems to be centered on this common driveway easement. I have had several
discussions of the common driveway with Joe Delucai and his architect Tim Woodle, and
there have been verbal proposals put forward by Joe 'Delucia. When I have accepted
these proposals they were immediately withdrawn. As of this date I have no proposal
from Joe Delucia as to what he wants for the common driveway, but we still support the
proposal put forth by Mr. Delucai's architect, Tim Woodle, and the Public Works
Department. This calls for granting Joe Delucai an additional 4" easement along the side
of our building for a driveway as is recommended in the Conditions Section in the final
approval letter for 173 Cross Street as Item 6.
I have summarized below our attempts to work with the owner of Lot 18, Joe Delucia, to
come to some agreement on the common driveway. When we have accepted a verbal
offer, it is immediately withdrawn. The only written offer I received has been the July 14,
1998 letter that was non-negotiable, and I had only a few hours to respond. It was also
withdrawn the next day. As of today, I have no proposals or offers on the common
driveway.
�G"idcv_'F V U
3421 Empresa.Suite A
(�(�o San Luis Oblspo, CA
7 141n 93401
805.781.3585
Fax 805.541.4550
May 29, 1998
I received a call from Joe DeLucia to request a meeting to discuss the easement for Lots
18 and Lots 19, which we scheduled for May 29, 1998 at the APS offices. At this
meeting everyone reviewed the plans for both lots in order to get a suitable design for the
common driveway. The ideas that were discussed were to put a curved driveway in the
easement to connect to the Lot 18 driveway, or to make the easement into a parking space
and moving the Lot 18 driveway. I left the meeting with the idea that Joe DeLucia would
get back to me with a plan that I could review and make a decision on.
June 1, 1998
On Monday I returned Joe's phone call to follow up on the easement plan. At that time he
said that he looked at the parking in the driveway plan and decided not to go through with
it. He also said that he was going to have the city look at the lot easement and was not
proposing a plan until the city reviewed the project at a meeting they were having. I
indicated in this phone call that I was interested in cooperating on the easement, but I
needed some type of written proposal.
June 8, 1998
I received a call from Joe DeLucia saying that I was being uncooperative on the easement
and that I did not return his phone calls made to my office between June 2 and June 8. 1
had my office manager checked the phone logs and she could not locate any phone calls
from Joe during that period. I indicated that we have every intention of cooperating on
the common easement, but to this date I had not received any plan to approve or
disapprove of. His comments were that the intent of the development was that we had to
use the common driveway. At the end of this conversation we scheduled a meeting for .
June 9, 1998 to try to resolve these issues, and I asked him to develop some specific plans
for the common easement for us to review.
June 9, 1998
At this meeting, held at the APS office, Joe presented no plans for the common easement.
We had some discussions and reviewed the plans to determine a possible solution to the
problem. Joe restated that the intent of the development was that we had to use the
common easement, and we would have to redesign our building and parking. I stated that
we were not opposed to making some modifications to our plan, but I would need some
type of proposal or plan in writing before we could make any decision.
June 129 1998
I met with Mike Peachey to go over a verbal proposal based on a rough plan submitted by
Joe Delucia's architect Tim Woodle (see Attachment 1). This plan called for using a 4'
section of the existing easement and an additional 4' extension to the easement as shown
in Attachment 1. This way the driveway could be completed. This plan is the same as
the one proposed by The Public Works Department in Item 6 of the Conditions(page 4 of
the ARC 90-98 Project Approval). I agreed to the idea and told Mike to contact Tim and
let them know this plan would work for us.
June 17, 1998
I called Joe DeLucia from my meeting in San Diego, and he said that he decided not to go
ahead with this plan. He said that he would wait for the ARC meeting,.and was
submitting a letter objecting to our plan. I told him that the plan his architect proposed on
June 12, 1998 was still acceptable to us.
June 30 and July 1
I placed a phone call and left message(s) on voice mail and with the secretary for Joe
DeLucia to call to discuss the easement.
July 6, 1998
The morning before the ARC meeting my architect, Mike Peachey (APS) received a call
from Tim Woodle, Joe Delucias architect (PULTS) to say that Joe wolf r g11 cosoI
object to our project if we agreed to June 12, 1998 easement plan and pay
told Mike to call Tim and say that we would agree. Later that day Tim called back to say
that Joe had changed his mind.
July 13, 1998
on Monday June 13, 1998 Joe Delucai sent a letter to Peggy Mandeville and Ron
Whisenand which contained a non-negotiable offer stating that if I did nottd ehim
him
exclusive use of the common easement, an additional strip of property, pa y
$5,000, he would appeal my ARC approval. I had till Tuesday at 5:00 PM to accept this
offer with no negotiations. He asked them to forward this offer to me. Peggy forwarded
the letter to me on Monday afternoon.
July 14, 1998
day, but was able to respond to Peggy in the afternoon that we
I had jury duty on this
ent for the area he was interested in, but we
were willing to give Joe Delucai an easem
Y
could not make it exclusive because we needed access to our utility room. Also I did not
have enough time to have any advisors look at his proposal to determine all of the
implications of what he was requesting. At 3:00 PM, I received a fax directly from Joe
Delucai with the same offer adding "This offer is not intended as a negotiation...".
July 15, 1998
I faxed Joe Delucia a letter stating that I would agree the an easement as he requested, but
I could not give him exclusive use of the easement since I need access to my utility room.
I also said that I could not respond to some elements of his proposal and needed more
time for my advisors to review the details. I indicated that I would still review the
proposal after the 5:00 PM deadline, and prepare a counter proposal.
July 16, 1998
I received a fax from Joe Delucia stating that all offers or negotiations are withdrawn, and
he was going to appeal the ARC approval.
August 17, 1998
Since the July 15, 1998 proposal was withdrawn, I have received no other proposals or
communications from Joe Delucai.
This summarizes my efforts to work with Joe DeLucai on common driveway. While at
this time I have no proposal or plan from Joe Delucia on the common driveway, we are
still willing to cooperate. I feel that the plan submitted by his architect, and supported by
Public Works would be a good solution for everyone.
Sin y,