The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-10-2014 PH2 Appeal of ARC Decision - Pacific Courtyards - Staff ReportCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13). RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 9), denying the appeals, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC’s) action to approve the mixed-use project at 1327 Osos Street, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Mission Medical LLC Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium- High Density Residential R- 3-H (historical preservation overlay zone) General Plan Office (O) & Medium-High Density Residential Site Area 23,600 square feet (0.54 acre) Environmental Status The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 18, 2008. An Addendum has been prepared to update the previous MND. REPORT-IN-BRIEF On June 25, 2013, the applicant submitted an application to the City for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), and architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The proposed mixed use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units on an approximately half-acre site located near the downtown core between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently used as a parking lot. The project has now been in the City review process for over a year since the application was made. The key issue with the project has been its contemporary architectural style given its 11/10/14 PH2 Old Town Historic District Site PH2 - 1 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 2 location in the Old Town Historic District, and associated concerns of that style related to scale, massing, and architectural detailing. The first project hearings were to review conceptual plans before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on November 25, 2013, and then the ARC on December 16, 2013. The CHC had fundamental concerns with the massing, roof design, and materials of the project and adopted a resolution recommending denial of the project, based on findings, including inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The ARC with its conceptual review provided further feedback and specific directional items for the applicant to consider prior to finalizing plans and returning for final approval. On April 9, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to create residential and commercial airspace condominium units, and a General Plan Amendment & Rezoning to “flip” the zoning and land use from what was approved in 2008. On June 10, 2014, the City Council reviewed these same entitlements and approved them through Resolution No. 10531 (Attachment 8). The approved rezoning orients the offices uses to Osos Street and the residential development to Morro Street. After Council approval of the rezoning and tract map, the project went back to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and ARC for consideration of the modified plans from what they had both reviewed at the end of 2013. On June 23, 2014, the CHC adopted a resolution again recommending denial of the revised project plans, based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 7). The project was then scheduled for final design review by the ARC. On August 4, 2014, the ARC continued action with directional items taking into account the concerns of the CHC for detailing and massing and guidance provided in the Community Design Guidelines (Attachment 6). On September 8, 2014, the ARC granted final approval to the project based on the applicant revising plans to respond to their directional items (Attachment 5). There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. Public members speaking at various hearings have spoken both in support and against the project. On September 18, 2014, two separate appeals of the project were submitted by adjacent property owners on the Morro 2008 Approved Zoning 2014 Approved Zoning PH2 - 2 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 3 Street side of the project. The first appeal was submitted by Alice Davis of 1322 Morro Street (Attachment 3). The second appeal was submitted by Stewart and Diane Jenkins of 1336 Morro Street (Attachment 4). Per Municipal Code Sections 2.48.080.D and 17.66.050 1, appeals of ARC decisions are scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. The following sections of this report describe the detailed ARC review of the project design over three public hearings, and the stated basis for the two appeals. DISCUSSION The project has been through multiple reviews with most of the comments focused on the project design and secondarily, parking. This appeal hearing before the City Council will be the eighth public hearing on this project. The appealed project is the sixth version of plan and the project design has changed significantly from its initial submittal. Architectural Review Commission Action On September 8, 2014, the ARC unanimously granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 5). The Commission concluded that the revised version of the project had been substantially modified so that it now fits the neighborhood, it would be compatible with surrounding development, and was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The two latest ARC staff reports from August 4th and September 8th are attached to provide a detailed project description, discussion of issues, and analysis of modifications. Staff’s Evaluation of Appeal Issues The following is a brief summary of the issues raised in the appeals and staff’s analysis of these issues. 1. Davis Appeal a. The project will negatively impact solar access to 1322 Morro Street. Response: The smaller building within the project adjacent to 1322 Morro Street includes three townhomes. The proposed building height and setbacks are compliant with property development standards of the R-3 zone. Sheet 16 of plans includes a sectional view showing how 1 17.66.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision. B. Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(E)) PH2 - 3 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 4 the building steps back as it gets taller to comply with side yard setback requirements. The City’s setback requirements were adopted specifically to provide reasonable solar access to neighbors and prevent excessive shading on adjacent properties. A separate solar shading study was not required because the project complied with the City’s setback requirements. b. The plan has insufficient parking. Response: The project requires a total of 47.1 parking spaces for the proposed mix of uses; a total of 34 spaces are included in the project. Therefore, a parking reduction of approximately 30% (47.1 x 0.30 = 14) was requested in accordance with City code sections. The Planning Commission supported the reduction utilizing Municipal Code sections that allow a 10% reduction for shared parking (17.16.060.B)2, and another 20% under the automobile trip reduction section (17.16.060.E)3. The Planning Commission agreed that a relaxation of the parking requirements was appropriate at this location because of its location adjacent to the downtown core and proximity to the Marsh Street Parking Structure. Per the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the ARC approved the parking reduction with their final review of the project design with the acknowledgement that City Transportation staff had approved the transportation demand management plan (TDMP) submitted by the applicant to assure that there were tangible programs and measures in place to reduce the need for on-site parking. The TDMP includes an informational bulletin board on alternative transportation programs and incentives, a FunShare car for employees’ use, car-pool only parking, shower facilities, and subsidized bicycles for employees’ use. Key to the success of the program will be meeting the stated goal of 1.6 Average Vehicle Ridership which will be tracked through an annual survey and report to the City with proposed modifications to the program if the goal is not met. c. Dead zones are created along the project’s streetscapes, especially on Morro Street. Response: The design of both street elevations was a focus of the ARC’s review, including how they interacted with pedestrians. The Osos Street elevation was modified to create office space on the ground floor with an entry facing the street. The final version of plans showed added glazing on the left-side of the elevation in replacement of a metal louver treatment to create more transparency at the ground floor level. 2 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.B: Shared parking reduction. Where two or more uses share common parking areas, the total number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an administrative use permit. Where shared parking is located on more than one parcel, affected parties must record an agreement governing the shared parking, to the satisfaction of the Director. 3 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.D: Automobile trip reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life. The applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction, including innovative project design, transportation demand management (tdm), or incentives, which will reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the site. These may include, but are not limited to programs such as car-sharing, employer-paid transit passes, cashouts (i.e. trip reduction incentive plans), or off-peak work hours. PH2 - 4 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 5 With the Morro Street elevation, the building has a more residential character with a gable end roof form and front door facing the street. The building volume closest to the street is two-story stepping up to three stories beyond. To address further architectural details to augment the elevation’s residential feel and character, a condition of final approval called for extended roof overhangs on the gable ends of the roof and a small shed awning above the doorway that was more reminiscent of other surrounding structures. While the space beyond the front door provides for access and circulation, rather than living space, the building still addresses the street and maintains a residential character. d. Fire safety is compromised by the design. Response: Various versions of the project design were reviewed by the City’s Fire Marshal and found to comply with Code requirements in terms of construction type, sprinkler systems, and emergency and ladder access. In terms of truck access, not all sites can accommodate fire trucks within project driveways. The Fire Marshal notes that there are no exterior points of the building that is more than 300 feet from a minimum 20 foot wide fire apparatus access road. Therefore, the project meets code requirements for complying access. e. Presentation materials such as bird’s eye views skew the visual impacts of the project. Response: The applicant’s submittal includes a variety of different types of formats to depict the building design which include standard elevation views as well as some perspectives. Perspective views help reviewers understand the third dimension of planned buildings that straight-in elevation views cannot convey. This is an advantage in more clearly understanding building massing and volumes. In addition, the applicant had a scale model of the project that was presented at ARC meetings and useful for understanding the relationship between buildings and site features. 2. Stewart Jenkins’ Appeal a. CHC’s recommendations for denial were overlooked. Response: As noted in the Report in Brief, the project was reviewed by the CHC on two separate occasions. The first review was on November 25, 2013 of conceptual plans. The CHC’s recommendation for denial was forwarded on to the ARC. Relevant policy guidance from both the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines were included in both the CHC and ARC conceptual reports. Many of the ARC’s conceptual directional items echoed the CHC’s base concerns. On June 23, 2014, the CHC reviewed revised plans and again recommended denial of the project. Again their recommendation was forwarded on to the ARC. On August 4, 2014, the ARC continued action on the specific design that the CHC had recommended against. The ARC provided the applicant with extensive directional items and plans were again revised. The changes to the Osos Street elevation greatly simplified its overall appearance by stepping back the third floor, eliminating the visual gap in the center of the upper floor, and removing the PH2 - 5 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 6 “wood box” form that created a less traditional rhythm and asymmetrical look. Changes to the Morro Street elevation focused on playing up the residential character of the building and cutting back on the size of roof decks. b. ARC ignored “requirements for proposed new development within a Historic District to provide for sizing, shaping, rhythm and styling of structures that incorporate the best examples of historic styling.” Response: The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines encourage compatibility with new buildings, but do not prohibit contemporary architecture. Instead Guideline 3.2.1 calls for new structures in historic districts “to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures…” The ARC’s focus was on how these elements of compatible architectural design were incorporated into the project plans. Guideline 3.2.1 concludes by noting that “new structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic.” With the many iterations of project plans, the massing, rhythm, and detailing of the buildings was modified to be more characteristic of the site’s location in the Old Town Historic District. Early on in the project review, metal siding and glass balconies were eliminated as not being appropriate at this site. As discussed above, later modifications affected the massing and fenestration of the Osos Street elevation to be more reminiscent of traditional architectural styles. The roof forms and detailing of the Morro Street elevation were refined to enhance its residential character. c. Removal of underground parking has floated massing on top of ground floor garages which removes human scale and ground floor living spaces which is incompatible with other development on Morro Street. Response: The 2009 version of the project was similar in that it was a mix of office space and residential units, but in terms of the building types and site planning it was quite different. Underground parking did not prove to be feasible for the applicant from a cost and engineering perspective so other solutions for parking were incorporated into the current project design that meet code requirements. The lack of pedestrian activity and human scale by having the main podium style building and garages on the ground floor of the Morro Street townhomes was taken into consideration with the many reviews of the project design. This is discussed in detail under 1.c. of the Davis appeal on Page 4 of this report. Conclusion While the CHC recommended denial of the project, the project was considered and unanimously approved by the ARC as infill and intensification and redevelopment of a surface parking lot. The proposed project also fulfills City goals to provide affordable housing since one of the units PH2 - 6 Council Agenda Report – Pacific Courtyards Project Appeals (GP/R, ER & TR 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos St.) Page 7 will be built on site and dedicated at an affordable level. In order to deny the project, the Council would need to direct staff to return with specific health and safety findings related to the project. Three hearings by the ARC were held and public testimony both for and against the approval of the project were considered. The review and public process resulted in substantial changes so that it was deemed to comply with the Community Design Guidelines which include compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may adopt a resolution upholding the appeals and denying the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. Should the City Council want to pursue this alternative, staff would return to City Council with the appropriate findings to uphold the appeals and deny the project. Direction should be given to staff should the City Council pursue this alternative. 2. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans approved by the ARC on 9-8-14 3. Appeal from Alice Davis dated 9-18-14 4. Appeal from Stewart and Diane Jenkins dated 9-18-14 5. 9-8-14 ARC follow-up letter, resolution, minutes, & staff report without attachments 6. 8-4-14 ARC follow-up letter, minutes, & staff report without attachments 7. 6-23-14 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes 8. City Council Resolution No. 10531 approving rezoning and VTM 9. Draft Resolution DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 11” x 17” colored plans AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Pages 7-44 of the Jenkins’ appeal including minutes, PowerPoint presentations, & letters Project correspondences T: \Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-11-10 (Rescheduled Reg Mtg)\Appeal of ARC decision - Pacific Courtyards (Johnson-Ricci) \ARC 96-13 appeal Council Agenda Report PH2 - 7 O O O O O PF R-4-H R-2-H R-3 C-D O R-3-H R-2-H R-3-H R-2-HR-2-H R-3 C-D C-N-H C-D C-D R-4-H O S O S PISMO M O R R O PACIF I C BUCHO N VICINITY MAPFile No. 96-131327 Osos ¯ Attachment 1 PH2 - 8 De s i g n S c h e m a t i c f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n - Fi n a l R e v i e w PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S A m i x e d u s e d e v e l o p m e n t AP N 0 0 2 - 4 4 2 - 0 1 3 , 0 1 4 a n d 0 2 0 Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 Ap p l i c a n t : MI S S I O N M E D I C A L , L L C 83 5 A e r o v i s t a P l a c e , S u i t e 2 3 0 Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 Pr e p a r e d b y : Pr e p a r e d f o r : Ci t y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O CO M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T , et a l . 8 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4 Pr e v i o u s I t e r a t i o n s 15 J u l y 2 0 1 4 6 M a r c h 2 0 1 4 6 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 17 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 24 J u n e 2 0 1 3 Pr o j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n & A R C D i r e c t i o n 1. Os o s S t r e e t P e r s p e c t i v e ( S o u t h ) 2. Os o s S t r e e t P e r s p e c t i v e ( N o r t h ) 3. Mo r r o S t r e e t B i r d ’ s E y e 4. Mo r r o S t r e e t P e r s p e c t i v e & C o u r t y a r d 5. Mo r r o & O s o s E l e v a t i o n s 6. No r t h E l e v a t i o n 7. So u t h E l e v a t i o n 8. Le v e l 0 1 F l o o r P l a n 9. Le v e l 0 2 F l o o r P l a n 10 . Le v e l 0 3 F l o o r P l a n 11 . Ro o f P l a n 12 . Ro o f D i a g r a m 13 . Si t e S e c t i o n 14 . Os o s S t r e e t S e t b a c k S e c t i o n 15 . Mo r r o S t r e e t S e t b a c k S e c t i o n 16 . Co n c e p t u a l L a n d s c a p e P l a n 17 . Co l o r a n d M a t e r i a l s 18 . De t a i l s 1 & 2 19 . De t a i l 3 20 . De t a i l s 4 & 5 21 . De t a i l s 6 & 7 22 . De t a i l 8 23 . De t a i l 9 24 . Un i t P l a n s A 25 . Un i t P l a n s B 26 . Un i t P l a n s C 27 . Un i t P l a n s D , E 1 , E 2 2 n d L e v e l 28 . Un i t P l a n s D , E 1 , E 2 3 r d L e v e l 29 . Un i t P l a n s D , E 1 , E 2 R o o f L e v e l 30 . Sh e e t I n d e x : Attachment 2 PH2 - 9 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 1 ZO N I N G : P A R C E L S I Z E : Me d i u m - H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l ( R - 3 ) a n d O f ﬁce ( O ) . 5 4 a c r e s / 2 3 , 6 0 0 S F = ( O ) . 2 2 a c r e s ; ( R - 3 ) . 3 2 a c r e s DE N S I T Y : Al l o w e d - 1 0 . 5 d e n s i t y u n i t s = 1 2 D U / a c r e i n ( O ) + 1 8 D U / a c r e i n ( R - 3 ) + 2 5 % d e n s i t y b o n u s f o r a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g Pr o p o s e d - 9 . 6 d e n s i t y u n i t s = 9 d w e l l i n g u n i t s @ ( 2 ) 3 - b e d r o o m u n i t x 1 . 5 d e n s i t y u n i t s + ( 6 ) 2 - b e d r o o m u n i t s x 1 d e n s i t y u n i t + ( 1 ) 1 - b e d r o o m x . 6 d e n s i t y u n i t FL O O R A R E A R A T I O : Al l o w e d - 1 . 5 F A R Pr o p o s e d - . 7 8 F A R = G r o s s ﬂoo r a r e a 1 8 , 3 1 0 S F / p r o j e c t s i t e a r e a 2 3 , 6 0 0 S F BU I L D I N G H E I G H T : Al l o w e d - 3 5 f e e t Pr o p o s e d - 3 5 f e e t = O f ﬁce - 3 s t o r i e s w i t h g r o u n d - l e v e l p a r k i n g , R e s i d e n t i a l - 2 s t o r i e s o v e r g r o u n d - l e v e l p a r k i n g BU I L D I N G S E T B A C K S : Re q u i r e d - S t r e e t y a r d 1 5 f e e t , S i d e y a r d 5 f e e t ( m i n i m u m ) Pr o p o s e d - S t r e e t y a r d 1 5 f e e t , S i d e y a r d 5 f e e t ( a n d g r e a t e r f o r u p p e r l e v e l s ) OP E N S P A C E : Re q u i r e d - 3 , 6 0 0 S F m i n i m u m s = ( 9 ) x 1 0 0 S F / u n i t f o r P r i v a t e , ( 9 ) x 1 0 0 S F / u n i t f o r C o m m o n , a n d ( 9 ) x 4 0 S F / u n i t R e c r e a t i o n a l Pr o p o s e d - 5 , 2 4 2 S F = 2 , 9 3 4 S F P r i v a t e , 1 , 6 4 4 S F C o m m o n , 6 6 4 S F R e c r e a t i o n a l PA R K I N G : Re q u i r e d - 3 4 s p a c e s p l u s 2 m o t o r c y c l e a n d 4 b i c y c l e Pr o p o s e d - 3 4 s p a c e s p l u s 2 m o t o r c y c l e a n d 3 2 + b i c y c l e OSO S S T R E E T P A C I F I C S T R E E T MOR R O S T R E E T P I S M O S T R E E T Lo c a t i o n M a p PR O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N & A R C D I R E C T I O N Ar c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n - D i r e c t i o n a l I t e m s ( A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 1 4 ) Ap p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e Pa r k i n g a s p r o v i d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t w a s g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e A R C . T h e A R C a g r e e d t o t h e c o n d i t i o n 1. th a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a r e v i s e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e Pu b l i c W o r k s a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r s t h a t i n c l u d e s s u p p o r t a b l e p r o g r a m s t h a t w i l l r e d u c e ve h i c l e t r i p s t o t h e s i t e . An u p d a t e d Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ha s b e e n p r e p a r e d t h a t i n c l u d e s a d d i t i o n a l v i a b l e m e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e si n g l e o c c u p a n c y v e h i c l e t r i p s a n d v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l l e d . Mo d i f y t h e M o r r o S t r e e t e l e v a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t a s f o l l o w s : 2. Fu r t h e r r e ﬁne t h e d e s i g n o f t h e r o o f d e c k s t o c r e a t e a m o r e s e a m l e s s t r a n s i t i o n f r o m g a b l e f o r m s ; a n d a. Lo o k a t a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n s f o r , o r f u r t h e r r e d u c e t h e s i z e s o f , t h e r o o f d e c k s t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n b. pr i v a c y a n d o v e r l o o k t o a d j a c e n t n e i g h b o r s . Pr o v i d e l a r g e r r o o f o v e r h a n g s t o t h e g a b l e e n d ; a n d c. Ex p l o r e t h e i d e a o f c r e a t i n g a y a r d a r e a a n d m o r e o f a r e c e s s f o r t h e e n t r y . d. Th e M o r r o S t r e e t f a ç a d e a d d r e s s e s t h e A R C c o m m e n t s v i a a r e d e s i g n o f t h e r o o f d e c k s , e n l a r g e m e n t o f t h e r o o f o v e r h a n g a n d cr e a t i o n o f a d e ﬁne d p r i v a t e f r o n t y a r d o p e n s p a c e . Se e S h e e t s 2 & 3 – Pe r s p e c t i v e s , S h e e t 6 – Elevation, and Sh e e t 2 1 & 2 2 – De t a i l s 3. M o d i f y t h e O s o s S t r e e t e l e v a t i o n s o f t h e p r o j e c t a s f o l l o w s : 3. Si m p l i f y t h e d e s i g n ; a. Pl a y u p t h e b u i l d i n g e n t r y ; b. Lo o k a t m o r e o f f s e t s o f t h e t h i r d ﬂoo r o n t h e a p a r t m e n t s i d e t o b e t t e r t r a n s i t i o n t h e b u i l d i n g m a s s ; c. Co n s i d e r t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e w o o d b o x o n t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e ; a n d d. Pr o v i d e l e s s o f a v i s u a l g a p i n t h e t h i r d ﬂoo r l e v e l . e. Th e O s o s S t r e e t f a ç a d e h a s b e e n s i m p l i ﬁed , t h e “ o r a n g e ” b o x a n d t h e v i s u a l g a p r e m o v e d , a n d t h e r e s u l t a n t d e s i g n n o w pr o v i d e s a n e l e g a n t s o l u t i o n t h a t i s b e t t e r d e s c r i b e d g r a p h i c a l l y . Se e S h e e t s 4 & 5 – Pe r s p e c t i v e s , S h e e t 6 – Elevation, and Sh e e t 2 1 & 2 4 – De t a i l s Bu i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s s h a l l b e f u l l y d i m e n s i o n e d a n d s h o w c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s i d e y a r d s e t b a c k r e q u i r e m e n t s . 4. Al l b u i l d i n g s c o m p l y w i t h t h e M u n i C o d e § § 1 7 . 1 6 . 0 2 0 . C & D Se e S h e e t s 1 5 & 1 6 – Se t b a c k S e c t i o n s Pr o v i d e m o r e p a r i t y f o r t h e a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g u n i t i n t e r m s o f i t s d e s i g n a n d a s s o c i a t e d a m e n i t i e s . 5. Th e a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g u n i t h a s b e e n u p d a t e d w i t h a n a d d i t i o n a l p r i v a t e p a t i o , a n d w i t h t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l r o o f de c k , a r e s u l t a n t s k y l i g h t . Se e S h e e t 1 0 & 1 1 – Fl o o r P l a n s Lo o k a t w a y s t o r e d u c e t h e v i s u a l p r o m i n e n c e o f t h e P G & E t r a n s f o r m e r i n t h e O s o s s t r e e t y a r d . 6. Th e t r a n s f o r m e r w i l l b e s c r e e n e d w i t h v e g e t a t i o n t o t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g P G & E a c c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s . Attachment 2 PH2 - 10 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 2 OS O S S T R E E T P E R S P E C T I V E ( S O U T H ) Attachment 2 PH2 - 11 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 3 OS O S S T R E E T P E R S P E C T I V E ( N O R T H ) Attachment 2 PH2 - 12 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 4 MO R R O S T R E E T B I R D ’ S E Y E Attachment 2 PH2 - 13 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 5 MO R R O S T R E E T P E R S P E C T I V E & C O U R T Y A R D Attachment 2 PH2 - 14 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 6 OS O S S T R E E T & M O R R O S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N S Se e s h e e t s 1 9 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 3 f o r d e t a i l s Attachment 2 PH2 - 15 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 7 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N Se e s h e e t s 1 9 , 2 4 f o r d e t a i l s Attachment 2 PH2 - 16 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 8 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N Se e s h e e t s 2 0 , 2 1 f o r d e t a i l s Attachment 2 PH2 - 17 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 9 LE V E L 0 1 F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 PH2 - 18 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 10 LE V E L 0 2 F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 PH2 - 19 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 11 LE V E L 0 3 F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 PH2 - 20 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 12 RO O F P L A N Attachment 2 PH2 - 21 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 13 RO O F D I A G R A M Attachment 2 PH2 - 22 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 14 Pr o j e c t S u m m a r y Re s i d e n t i a l C o u n t F l o o r A r e a To w n h o m e A 3 1 , 2 8 0 s f 2- b e d r o o m + 2 . 5 B a t h To w n h o m e B 1 1 , 3 6 0 s f 2- b e d r o o m + 2 . 5 B a t h To w n h o m e C 1 1 , 3 0 0 s f 2- b e d r o o m + 2 . 5 B a t h To w n h o m e D 1 1 , 3 3 0 s f 2- b e d r o o m + 2 B a t h To w n h o m e ‘ E 1 ’ 1 1 , 5 8 0 s f 3- b e d r o o m + 2 B a t h To w n h o m e ‘ E 2 ’ 1 1 , 5 7 0 s f 3- b e d r o o m + 2 B a t h 1 B e d A p t . 1 6 5 0 s f 1- b e d r o o m + 1 B a t h Pr o j e c t T o t a l s 9 1 1 , 6 3 0 s f Co m m e r c i a l A r e a Op e n S p a c e 1s t F l o o r O f ﬁ c e 1 1 , 0 5 0 s f 2n d F l o o r O f ﬁ c e 2 2 , 1 6 0 s f 2 5 8 s f O f ﬁ c e 3 1 , 6 5 0 s f 3r d F l o o r O f ﬁ c e 4 1 , 9 9 0 s f 4 0 0 s f O f ﬁ c e 5 1 , 2 0 0 s f To t a l 8 , 0 5 0 s f 6 5 8 s f Sh a r e d P a r k i n g standard compact total si n g l e 2 0 3 2 3 s p a c e s ta n d e m 5 0 5 s p a c e s to t a l 2 5 3 2 8 s p a c e s No t e : 2 A c c e s s i b l e p a r k i n g s p a c e s i n c l u d e d i n s t a n d a r d c o u n t To w n h o m e D , E 1 , a n d E 2 s p e c i ﬁ c Parking s t a n d a r d c o m p a c t t o t a l si n g l e 6 0 6 s p a c e s Au t o m o b i l e T O T A L p a r k i n g 3 4 s p a c e s Mo t o r c y c l e 2 s p a c e s Bi c y c l e S h o r t - t e r m 4 s p a c e s L o n g - t e r m 2 2 s p a c e s T o t a l 2 6 s p a c e s To w n h o m e D T o w n h o m e ' E 1 ' T o w n h o m e ' E 2 ' To w n h o m e A OfficeOffice 1 - 212.0'2 - 223.0'3 - 234.5'R - 246.0'Parking 1 - 2 1 0 . 0 ' 2 - 2 2 0 . 0 ' 3 - 2 3 1 . 0 ' R - 2 4 1 . 5 ' P - 2 4 5 . 0 ' NO T E S : 1 . A v e r a g e g r a d e o n s i t e = 2 1 2 . 0 ' 2. M a x i m u m h e i g h t = 3 5 ' - 0 " o r 2 4 7 . 0 " t o t o p o f r o o f Mech. 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " Si t e S e c t i o n SI T E S E C T I O N Attachment 2 PH2 - 23 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 15 OS O S S T R E E T S E C T I O N S E T B A C K Attachment 2 PH2 - 24 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 16 MO R R O S T R E E T S E C T I O N S E T B A C K Attachment 2 PH2 - 25 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 17 MORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORMORRRO RO RO RO RO RORO RO RO ROROROROORSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRSTRRSTRSTRSTRTTTEETEETEETEETEETEETEETEETEETEETEETETEEEE OSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOOSOSOSOS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSS SSSSSS STRETRETRETRETRETRETRETRETRETRETREEETETETETETETETETETETTT SI T E F U R N I S H I N G S LA N D S C A P E P L A N T E R S LA N D S C A P E P L A N T E R S LANDSCAPE PLANTERSWOOD BENCHES PL A N T M A T E R I A L RO O F G A R D E N CO N C E P T U A L L A N D S C A P E P L A N Attachment 2 PH2 - 26 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 18 CO L O R & M A T E R I A L S Attachment 2 PH2 - 27 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 19 DE T A I L S 1 & 2 DE T A I L S (1 ) C O R N E R D E T A I L (2 ) E N T R Y D E T A I L PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING 2’ X 4 ’ P A I N T E D H A R D I E PA N E L S W I T H E X P O S E D FA S T E N E R S CA N V A S C A N O P Y O N 1 ” X 1 ” ST E E L F R A M E 2X 6 V A R N I S H E D W O O D R A I L PA I N T E D S T E E L D O W E L S @ 3 3 / 4 ” O . C . EX T . P L A S T E R UNIT DESIGNATION SIGNAGE 2’X4’ HARDIE PANELS WOOD ENTRY DOOR AND FIXED PANEL Attachment 2 PH2 - 28 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 20DETAIL 3 DE T A I L S (3 ) B A L C O N Y / W I N G W A L L D E T A I L 1 / 4 ” = 1 ’ - 0 ” AL U M I N U M W I N D O W AL U M I N U M S I L L 4” P A I N T E D H A R D I E L A P SI D I N G 6” X 3 ” V A R N I S H E D W O O D GA U R D R A I L PA I N T E D S T E E L D O W E L S @ 3 3 / 4 ” O . C . PA I N T E D S H E E T M E T A L ED G E F L A S H I N G TR E X D E C K I N G CO N C R E T E Attachment 2 PH2 - 29 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 21 DE T A I L S 4 & 5 Attachment 2 PH2 - 30 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 22 DE T A I L S 6 & 7 Attachment 2 PH2 - 31 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 23DETAIL 8Attachment 2 PH2 - 32 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 24DETAIL 9 DE T A I L S (9 ) E N T R Y D E T A I L 2X 6 V A R N I S H E D W O O D R A I L PA I N T E D S T E E L D O W E L S @ 3 3/ 4 ” O . C . PA I N T E D S T E E L P L A T E EN T R Y C A N O P Y PA I N T E D W O O D F A S C I A IP E S O F F I T W I T H D O W N L I G H T S 8” S C O N C E L I G H T S AL U M I N U M S T O R E F R O N T E N T R Y DO O R S Attachment 2 PH2 - 33 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 25 UN I T P L A N S A Attachment 2 PH2 - 34 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 26 UN I T P L A N S B Attachment 2 PH2 - 35 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 27 UN I T P L A N S C Attachment 2 PH2 - 36 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 28 UN I T P L A N S D , E 1 , E 2 - 2 N D L E V E L Attachment 2 PH2 - 37 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 29 To w n h o u s e D , ‘ E 1 ’ , a n d ‘ E 2 ’ , T h i r d L e v e l sc a l e : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ - 0 ” UN I T P L A N S D , E 1 , E 2 - 3 R D L E V E L Attachment 2 PH2 - 38 PA C I F I C C O U R T Y A R D S M I X E D U S E 9/8/14SHEET 30 UN I T P L A N S D , E 1 , E 2 - R O O F L E V E L Attachment 2 PH2 - 39 Attachment 3 PH2 - 40 Attachment 3 PH2 - 41 Attachment 3 PH2 - 42 Attachment 3 PH2 - 43 Attachment 4 PH2 - 44 Attachment 4 PH2 - 45 Attachment 4 PH2 - 46 Attachment 4 PH2 - 47 Attachment 4 PH2 - 48 Attachment 4 PH2 - 49 Attachment 5 PH2 - 50 Attachment 5 PH2 - 51 Attachment 5 PH2 - 52 Attachment 5 PH2 - 53 Attachment 5 PH2 - 54 Attachment 5 PH2 - 55 Attachment 5 PH2 - 56 Attachment 5 PH2 - 57 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 8, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Suzan Ehdaie, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good Absent: Commissioners Ken Curtis and Amy Nemcik Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Contract Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of August 18, 2014, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 774 Caudill Street. ARC 101-14; Review of a new mixed-use project consisting of four residential units and six work/live units located on the north side of Caudill Street between Victoria Avenue and Broad Street with a categorical exemption from environmental review; M zone; Caudill Street Partners, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) Contract Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ehdaie questioned about how the contemporary design blends in with an adjacent house that may be listed as historic. Attachment 5 PH2 - 58 ARC Minutes September 8, 2014 Page 2 George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, representing the applicant, pointed out the eclectic nature of the neighborhood in both uses and architecture. Contract Planner Cohen clarified that the neighborhood may include several historic homes, but that the area was not designated as an historic district. Commr. Wynn stated that this is an exciting project, and there will be more of this relatively dense workforce housing in the future. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Root, to adopt the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Root, Andreen, Ehdaie, and McCovey-Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 2. 1321 and 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96-13; Review of plans for a mixed-use project with nine (9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space in the Old Town Historic District, including a request for a parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip-reduction program; R-3-H and O-H zone; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, covering in detail the changes made to the project to respond to previous ARC direction, and recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. She noted the letters from the public received. Carol Florence, applicant representative, noted that the applicant team concurred with the project conditions. She mentioned the efforts made by the applicant to work with City staff to refine the Transportation Demand Management Plan. Jonathan Watts, project architect, described the various changes to respond to the ARC’s directional items. He noted that the Osos Street elevation had been simplified and the wood box eliminated, resulting in a more contiguous building. He explained that the elongated eaves on the Morro Street elevation would be 18 inches and that roof wells had been provided to screen equipment. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Stew Jenkins, SLO, stated that the revised project is not as ugly as it once was, but that he is still opposed to this project because it does not solve some of the neighborhood Attachment 5 PH2 - 59 ARC Minutes September 8, 2014 Page 3 problems. He noted that the bank of garages adjacent to his home creates a dead zone without human activity and expressed concern about the glare of security lighting being visible and intrusive through adjacent windows and in backyards. He stated that the mass and size of this project violates the historic district development requirements because there are no other three-story buildings in the neighborhood and only a few properties with a garage right on the street and those few have their living space on the ground floor. He stated that in addition to consistency, the City should be looking for a transition in mass and size; instead, this project presents a massive wall on Morro Street that separates the downtown from the neighborhood. He noted that the architects' drawing of Morro Street shows grass on his property in place of his driveway. He added that only natural starlight and street lights should be seen at night, not parties on fourth floor decks. He urged denial of the project and suggested the architects consult the neighbors before redesigning the project. Buzz Kalkowski, SLO, stated that the redesign on Osos Street is somewhat improved but he finds some difficulties with the Morro Street side. He noted that the Cultural Heritage Committee did not recommend approval. He pointed out that birds-eye and perspective drawings can distort how the project will actually look in relation to the neighboring homes and that it is important to view the project from the street or pedestrian level. He added that the rooftop open spaces will become party platforms if the residences become second home purchases because buyers would likely turn them into vacation or student rentals. He expressed concern about the type of lighting that will be used on the decks. He asserted that there will not be enough parking and that tandem parking rarely works because the moving of cars is disruptive and requires two drivers plus space to maneuver the cars. Diane Jenkins, SLO, stated that the 2008-09 project design, approved by the CHC and the neighborhood, was complementary to the neighborhood with living quarters on the ground floor, but the proposed design is problematic with the living areas on the upper floors and a bank of solid garage doors on the ground floor next to her home. She stated that this is the wrong project for this 28-block neighborhood of single bungalows. She noted that the construction of the two apartment buildings in the neighborhood resulted in a decision to protect the historic downtown. Pete Peterson, SLO, neighbor, stated that the architects have done a good job of improving the project design but there are still two problems: the mass of a four-story complex, including the roof decks, next to one-story homes; and the reduced parking, which will impact the neighborhood because cars will be parked on the streets and some will end up being towed. He stated that cutting the mass will also solve the parking problem. There were no further comments from the public. Attachment 5 PH2 - 60 ARC Minutes September 8, 2014 Page 4 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wynn stated that the applicant has done a good job of fixing up the project to the point where he can support it because it now fits in the neighborhood. He noted that some further revisions are needed. Commr. Andreen stated that the project has achieved a certain elegance that will fit on the street and is compatible with the church. She added that it will bring people downtown to live, will add feet to the street, and is better than a parking lot. Commrs. Wynn and McCovey-Good stated they have no problem with the parking plan. Senior Planner Ricci noted that an annual parking report is required and, if goals are not met, the approach to parking will need to be revisited. Commr. Wynn stated that the small awning over the door facing Morro Street needs architectural projection to give it more mass and that this could be done by moving the awning up to the second level window and making it wider. Commr. Root agreed. Commr. Andreen noted that she looked at the bright yellow color proposed for the awning at other locations downtown, such as Jamba Juice, and found that it does blend in well with the surroundings. Commr. McCovey-Good stated that a more traditional entry doorway would be better for this Morro Street elevation. Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording which was acceptable to the Commissioners: “Replace the shed awning with a shed roof similar to others in the neighborhood.” Commr. Wynn stated that the details of this condition could be worked out at the staff level. Senior Planner Ricci addressed concerns about lighting by referring to Condition 10 of the Draft Resolution which requires exterior lighting to be completely shielded. She noted that the City's lighting ordinances are stringent and lighting on the roof decks will need to be integral to the walls and not shine onto other properties. Commr. Wynn expressed concern about the possibility of a queue of cars blocking the sidewalk at the garage entrance and asked if the security gate could be moved further into the building. He also suggested painting the sidewalls of the garage entrance white to keep this area from being too dark and stated he would like to prevent these walls from being cluttered with signage, mailboxes, etc. He opposed creative painting on the PG&E transformer box. He also expressed concern about each vertical portion of the windows to the left of the garage entrance having a different appearance with the top section clear glass, the middle spandrel glass painted on the reverse, and the bottom Attachment 5 PH2 - 61 ARC Minutes September 8, 2014 Page 5 section possibly etched or obscure glass. He stated they should all look the same if possible and noted that if the glass is clear on the bottom level, the parked cars and sprinklers, etc., could be seen from the street. Commr. Ehdaie questioned whether it was important to screen or obscure the view of the garage interior and stated that the glass, top to bottom, should have a consistent appearance. Commr. Root asked if there could be a screen in front of the vertical windows to the left of the garage entrance. Commr. Wynn suggested fritted glass with a pattern that varies from heavy at the bottom to light at the top. Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording: “variegated fritted glazing shall be used on the left hand side of the Osos Street elevation.” Commr. Root stated that continuity is important for this elevation facing Osos Street so the other large window should be treated the same. Commr. Wynn asked if the transformer box could be moved away from the front of the window on Osos Street. The architect stated that this is a possibility. Senior Planner Ricci suggested that Condition 11 be changed to read: “Applicant shall maximize planting around the PG&E transformer cabinet, and work with PG&E to explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south property line to the review of the Community Development Director.” The Commissioners indicated that the changes made to the affordable housing unit were acceptable and that the last sentence of Condition 6 requiring the pre-cast bulkhead to extend across the base of the windows to the left of the garage entrance be deleted. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to approve the Draft Resolution granting final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, with the following changes: 1) Condition 4 to require a small shed roof similar to those in the neighborhood; 2) Condition 6 to require variegated, fritted windows to the left of the garage entrance; 3) Condition 11 to require the applicant to maximize planting around the PG&E transformer cabinet, and work with PG&E to explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south property line to the review of the Community Development Director. Attachment 5 PH2 - 62 ARC Minutes September 8, 2014 Page 6 AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Ehdaie, Andreen, McCovey-Good, and Root NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Ricci • September 15, 2014, meeting will be in the Council Chamber—1845 Monterey Street, new hotel behind Pappy McGregor’s, and another small project. • October 6, 2014—brownstone project in the back parking lot of the Bank of America building, 7 units; Laguna Village identification signs for new stores; 9-unit residential condo project on Rockview. Senior Planner Ricci will be absent. • October 20, 2014--conceptual plans for the Miner's parking lot development; residential care facility in the old KSBY building on Hill Street; CalTrans offices on S. Higuera. • November 3, 2014—Long-Bonetti Ranch; modified version of mixed use project next to Wells Fargo. 4. Commission: • Commr. Wynn may be absent from October 6, 2014, meeting. • Commr. McCovey-Good observed that the windows for the Big Five store in the Marigold Center are covered with images on the glass. Senior Planner Ricci will talk to Enforcement to find out if the images are temporary. • Commr. Ehdaie complimented the design of Scout Coffee on Garden Street. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on October 6, 2014. Laurie Thomas Administrative Assistant III Attachment 5 PH2 - 63 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between Osos and Morro Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District, including a request for a parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip reduction program. PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 96-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Mission Medical LLC Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H) (historical preservation overlay zone) General Plan Office & Medium-High Density Residential Site Area 23,600 square feet (0.54 acre) Environmental Status The City Council approved an Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 10, 2014. SUMMARY The proposed mixed use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units on an approximately half-acre site located between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently used as a parking lot. To accommodate planned development, the applicant has received approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums). Meeting Date: September 8, 2014 Item Number: 2 Old Town Historic District Site Attachment 5 PH2 - 64 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014 Page 2 The project is now before the ARC for final architectural review including a request for a parking reduction. On August 4, 2014, the project was scheduled for final design review, but the ARC continued action with directional items (Attachment 4). The August 4th staff report is included as Attachment 3 and provides the detailed project description and analysis. The attachments to the August 4th report are available for review on the website, rather than attached again to this report. This report focuses on the new information and revised project plans recently submitted in response to the directional items. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action. The ARC is also charged with reviewing a request for a parking reduction. The Planning Commission discussed parking with their review of the project and recommended approval of a parking reduction. 2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project directional items are listed below along with staff’s analysis. 1. Parking as provided in the project was generally supported by the ARC. The ARC agreed to the condition that the applicant shall submit a revised Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Directors that includes supportable programs that will reduce vehicle trips to the site. Staff’s Analysis: Findings 3-5 included in the draft resolution support on-site parking as proposed through a 10% shared parking reduction and with adoption of automobile trip reduction program. Attachment 5 includes the applicant’s updated transportation demand management plan. Staff has worked closely with the applicant on the development of this plan and finds that the applicant has met the requirements of Condition No. 24 to implement a TDMP. With the review of the project on August 4th, staff expressed reservations with the draft plan because it did not specify programs and measures to reduce the need for on-site parking. The current plan does include such programs and measures and also provides a plan for oversight and management of the program including monitoring and reporting. Key to the success of the program will be meeting the stated goal of 1.6 Average Vehicle Ridership which will be tracked through an annual survey and report to the City with proposed modifications to the program if the goal is not met. The 1.6 AVR goal is established in the City’s General Plan. As an example, a 1.6 AVR is met when you have 40 employees and 25 of them drive alone to work and 15 use some form of alternative transportation. Attachment 5 PH2 - 65 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014 Page 3 2. Modify the Morro Street elevation of the project as follows: a. Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition from gable forms; and b. Look at alternative locations for, or further reduce the sizes of, the roof decks to take into consideration privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbors. c. Provide larger roof overhangs to the gable end; and d. Explore the idea of creating a yard area and more of a recess for the entry. Morro Street Bird’s Eye 8-4-14 Morro Street Bird’s Eye 9-8-14 Staff’s Analysis: The transition of the roof toward the interior of the site from the street-facing gable end has been refined to appear better integrated with a shed extension on the second and third levels and having the roof deck walls further set back and finished with asphalt shingles to blend with the roofing. These changes coordinate with roof decks being further set back and reduced in area. Planter boxes at the perimeter work to provide additional screening to the benefit of both residents and their adjacent neighbors. A noticeable change in the length of the roof overhangs is not apparent between drawings. The applicant points out that revised plans contracted the walls about 1 foot which result in a deeper overhang. Condition No. 4 is recommended to call for a detail of the eaves to be shown in working drawings submitted for a building permit that show the extended overhang. Plans show a small landscaped and fenced yard area leading to the front door of the townhome unit facing Morro Street as recommended. The front door detail on Sheet 22 shows that the door will be a painted solid core wood. Attachment 5 PH2 - 66 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014 Page 4 3. Modify the Osos Street elevations of the project as follows: a. Simplify the design; b. Play up the building entry; c. Look at more offsets of the third floor on the apartment side to better transition the building mass; d. Consider the elimination of the wood box on the left-hand side; and e. Provide less of a visual gap in the third floor level. Osos Street Elevation 8-4-14 Osos Street Elevation 9-8-14 Staff’s Analysis: The most significant design changes were those made to the left hand side of the Osos Street elevation. Consistent with the ARC’s direction, the design was simplified, a greater setback made adjacent to the Rio Bravo Apartments, the wood box removed, and the central gap eliminated. Gray cementitious siding is used for the wall surface above the garage entry. More transparency has been created in the elevation at the ground level with the addition of a large, vertical set of divided window panes on the left-hand side. Detail 5 on Sheet 21 shows an enlarged view of the window design. The detail shows that the window frames extend to the ground. Staff recommends that the pre-cast base extend across this part of the elevation since landscaping is proposed to abut the windows. The applicant indicates that the upper and lower panes will be typical clear Low-E insulating glass with matching spandrel glass at the middle panels to obscure the floor transitions. ARC Discussion Items: The Commission needs to determine if the changes to the elevation adequately respond to direction and address previous concerns with the design. The ARC should weigh in on the use of the clear window panes in front of the garage space and the appropriateness of this articulation. Condition No. 6 includes language in italics for the ARC to refine with their review of the project at the meeting. 4. Building elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show compliance with side yard setback requirements. Staff’s Analysis: Sheets 15 & 16 were added to plans showing how required side yard setbacks are met. Attachment 5 PH2 - 67 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014 Page 5 5. Provide more parity for the affordable housing unit in terms of its design and associated amenities. Staff’s Analysis: The affordable one-bedroom flat has more natural light as the former office roof deck above it has been eliminated. A private terrace area has been created on the side of the unit that provides more privacy than the earlier proposal for space directly off the main courtyard. 6. Look at ways to reduce the visual prominence of the PG&E transformer in the Osos street yard. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant is proposing additional landscaping around the transformer for screening. Condition No. 11 is recommended to encourage the applicant to work with P.G.&E. to explore the possibility of creative painting to make the transformer blend in better with the building beyond. 3.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONOn There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. The ARC may review previous correspondences received for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. In addition, Attachment 8 of the August 4th ARC report contains a letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown on the project. Attachment 6 to this report includes a new letter from Sandra Lakeman. 4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Continue action to a date uncertain with direction on items to return in revised plans. 5.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic District. Attachment 5 PH2 - 68 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014 Page 6 6.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Resolution Attachment 2: Reduced-size project plans Attachment 3: 8-4-14 staff report without attachments Attachment 4: 8-4-14 ARC follow-up letter & minutes Attachment 5: Applicant’s updated transportation demand management plan Attachment 6: Sandra Lakeman comments Distributed to ARC: 11” x 17” colored project plans Attachment 5 PH2 - 69 Attachment 6 PH2 - 70 Attachment 6 PH2 - 71 Attachment 6 PH2 - 72 Attachment 6 PH2 - 73 Attachment 6 PH2 - 74 Attachment 6 PH2 - 75 Attachment 6 PH2 - 76 Attachment 6 PH2 - 77 Attachment 6 PH2 - 78 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between Osos and Morro Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District, including a request for an approximately 30% parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip reduction program. PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 96-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. SITE DATA Applicant Mission Medical LLC Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H) (historical preservation overlay zone) General Plan Office & Medium-High Density Residential Site Area 23,600 square feet (0.54 acre) Environmental Status The City Council approved an Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 10, 2014. SUMMARY The applicant submitted an application to the City for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), and architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The proposed mixed use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units on an approximately half-acre site located between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently used as a parking lot. Meeting Date: August 4, 2014 Item Number: PH-2 Old Town Historic District Site Attachment 6 PH2 - 79 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 2 A previous mixed-use project was approved by the City for the site in 2008-2009. The current version of the project was submitted in June of 2013 to reorient the office and residential uses on the site and to pursue a contemporary architectural style. There have been several modifications to the current project since it was initially submitted. An earlier version of the current project was conceptually reviewed by the ARC in December of 2013 and continued with direction. The project is now before the ARC for final architectural review including a request for a parking reduction. At this time, staff finds that the applicant’s design submittal is not consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines or the Community Design Guidelines. This is primarily due to the building elevations facing Osos Street and the fact that the mass, form and design components do not relate to the existing historic elements of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending a continuance to direct the applicant to make further changes to the design. In addition, staff is continuing to work with the applicant team on their Transportation Demand Management Plan to support the full extent of the automobile parking reduction requested. However, staff has also prepared a resolution approving the design if a majority of the ARC supports the revised project design. The other alternative would be to deny the project design based on inconsistency with applicable guidelines. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to take into consideration the recommendation of the CHC that the project is not a good fit in the context of the site’s location in the Old Town Historic District, and to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action. The ARC is also charged with reviewing a request for a parking reduction. The Planning Commission discussed parking with their review of the project and recommended approval of a parking reduction. The parking reduction is discussed in Section 3.6 of the staff report. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Review/History On November 25, 2013, the project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) since the site is within the Old Town Historic District. The CHC had fundamental concerns with the massing, roof design, and materials of the project and adopted a resolution recommending denial of the project, based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 3). On December 16, 2013, the ARC conceptually reviewed the project. The ARC continued action and provided directional items. The main issues discussed by the ARC were parking, building massing and materials (Attachment 4). Attachment 6 PH2 - 80 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 3 On June 10, 2014, the City Council through Resolution No. 10531 approved a Vesting Tentative Map to create residential and commercial airspace condominium units, and a General Plan Amendment & Rezoning to “flip” the zoning and land use from what was approved in 2008 (Attachment 5). The approved rezoning orients the offices uses to Osos Street and the residential development to Morro Street. Figure 1. Zoning Exhibit Now that the site zoning has been set, the project is required to return to both the CHC and ARC. On June 23, 2014, the CHC reviewed a revised version of the project from what they reviewed in November of 2013. The CHC adopted a resolution again recommending denial of the project, based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 6). 2.2 Site Information/Setting The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that contains a total of 47 spaces. The portions of the parking lot that are currently zoned R-3 are considered non-conforming uses since parking as a principal use is not allowed in residential zones. The site is generally level, sloping down slightly from east to west, and developed with surface parking and planters. Sheet 17 of the plans (Attachment 2) includes an existing tree inventory and proposed status with development. Some of the larger trees are Monterey Pines, eucalyptus, and Holly Oaks. The project site is located in the Old Town Historic District. All of the residential properties in the same block to the south of the site are also in the Old Town Historic District and considered to be Contributing Historic Properties. Other nearby development includes a mixture of residential projects, parking lots, and office buildings. The San Luis Medical complex and the Marsh Street parking structure are located to the north. Another significant use on the adjacent property to the northeast of the site is the Seventh Day Adventist Church at the corner of Osos and Pacific Streets (1301 Osos), historically known as the First Baptist Church and built in 1907. 2008 Approved Zoning 2014 Approved Zoning Attachment 6 PH2 - 81 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 4 The church is on the Master List of Historic Resources and is described as an “English Craftsman/Carpenter Gothic” architectural building style. It has a ranking of 3, which means that it is eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places (see Figure 2). This site is not in the Old Town Historic district, but is the most historically significant structure within the project block. 2.3 Project Description The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development project that includes a total of 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential condominium units. The project consists of two separate structures. The larger building is a podium style structure with both office space and six residential units that is oriented to Osos Street and contains a total floor area of 35,445 square feet (including ground floor parking, second level patio and roof decks). The smaller building (6,819 square feet including garages and roof decks) contains three residential units and is oriented to Morro Street. The larger podium building contains all of the office space (see Figure 3 on the following page). The building has been designed with 1,050 square feet of office floor space on the ground floor in the northeast corner of the building near Osos Street, 3,810 square feet on the second level, and 3,190 square feet on the third level. The offices have a roof deck on the interior of the project at the third level. The podium building also contains five townhomes in the western portion of the structure and a one-bedroom flat. Two stairwells and an elevator provide access to a courtyard area on the second level that provides common space for the residential units and entries to individual units beyond private terraces adjoining the courtyard. The two-story townhomes range in size between 1,240 to 1,320 square feet. A one-story, 650 square-foot one-bedroom unit is included on the south side of the building which would be the project’s designated affordable unit. To accommodate the proposed number of residential units, a 25% density bonus was approved by the City Council. To qualify for the density bonus, a minimum of 10% of the total number of project units needs to be a deed-restricted affordable unit designated for very-low income households. The applicant has satisfied this requirement by designating the one-bedroom unit as a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income households. Figure 2. Seventh Day Adventist Church Attachment 6 PH2 - 82 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 5 The smaller building contains three residential units that range in size between 1,230 to 1,610 square feet. The units each have ground floor garages and two levels of living area above. The units are accessed by a driveway off of Morro Street. Figure 3. Level 2 Floor Plan The podium structure has a central opening in the building that provides the access point to Osos Street (see Figure 4 below). In addition to covered parking (total of 28 spaces), the first floor of the office includes the project’s trash and recycling facilities, equipment rooms, a lobby, elevator, stairwell, and residential storage spaces. Mo r r o S t r e e t Os o s S t r e e t Figure 4. Level Floor Plan Os o s S t r e e t Mo r r o S t r e e t Attachment 6 PH2 - 83 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 6 Table 1. Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yards (Osos & Morro) 15 feet 15 feet Max. Building Height 35 feet 35 feet Building Coverage (footprint) 58% 60% Parking Spaces 343 47.1 Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans revised July 15, 2014 2. Zoning Regulations 3. 30% parking reduction requested A total of 34 parking spaces are proposed for the project. A driveway off of Osos Street would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) composed of: 1) 15 standard spaces; 2) 3 compact spaces; and 3) 10 tandem spaces The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the Townhome units which have access via Morro Street. Currently the site provides 19 parking spaces for the Mission Medical complex at 1235 Osos Street. With project development, the parking provided for Mission Medical would be eliminated and Mission Medical would instead pay parking in-lieu fees. Sheet 17 of plans (Attachment 2) includes the locations of all existing trees on the site. Generally the applicant’s proposal will retain the street trees on Osos Street and trees on adjacent properties, but remove the rest of the on-site trees. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Plan Updates Project plans have been revised since both the CHC and ARC reviewed the project at the end of 2013. The main modification to the project has been to create a podium style building for the larger structure oriented to Osos Street. The earlier version of the plans previously reviewed by the ARC had an auto court open to the sky between portions of the building set aside for residential uses and offices 3.2 Policy Guidance The Historic Preservation Program provides guidelines for ensuring architecturally compatible development within historic districts, and adjacent to historically designated structures. As mentioned, the church on the adjacent property at 1301 Osos Street is a Master List property located just outside the historic district. All of the residential and office properties to the south of the site are in the historic district and are Contributing properties, including the large, stucco-clad Attachment 6 PH2 - 84 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 7 Rio Bravo apartments at the corner of Osos and Pismo Streets. Following are the adopted criteria which are most relevant to project development at this site in the Old Town Historic District: 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. 5.2.1 Old Town Historic District (Architectural Character). In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during the that time period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. his included several style variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings. 3.3 Building Form & Massing The project is similar in scale to the previously approved 2008-2009 version in terms of including three levels of building area and an overall height of 35 feet. The project proposes the same approximate setbacks as nearby structures and is consistent with property development standards of the Zoning Regulations. The site’s location on the edge of the downtown core is intended to be more intensely developed and the mix of land uses is supported by General Plan policies. While many of the project elevations will have limited off-site visibility, the two street elevations facing Osos and Morro Streets will be highly visible. Attachment 6 PH2 - 85 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 8 Osos Street The Osos Street building elevation has a flat roof and substantial amounts of glazing. It is lower in height than the adjacent historic church to the west and somewhat taller than the rectilinear and flat roof Rio Bravo apartments built in 1918 to the east. Figure 5 includes a comparison between the plans reviewed last November and the current proposal (Sheet 3 of plans). Staff’s Analysis: Looking at the two elevations side by side, a case could be made that the original version with its darker base and neutral palette appears more recessive and is as compatible as, or more compatible than, the revised version. The advantage of the revised elevation is that it has more modulation in wall planes afforded by the second and third level decks and the void created by the central courtyard above the podium. In addition, the elevation includes ground floor fenestration provided by having some office space at the street level. However, neither elevation complements the streetscape and both look overly severe and boxy. The project massing is inconsistent with Historic Preservation Program Guideline 3.2.1 that calls for new development to have a rhythm and massing consistent with surrounding development. This might be improved by having more of the steps and voids of the building oriented toward Figure 5. Osos Street elevation Attachment 6 PH2 - 86 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 9 the church side. Since the CHC’s last review of the project on June 23rd and with staff’s recommendation, the applicant has converted one of the storefronts into an entry door facing Osos Street to address previous direction to have more human-scale elements along the street frontages. Yellow shed awnings have also been added above storefronts. While staff feels like these changes are appropriate, the fundamental massing concerns previously raised have not been addressed. ARC Discussion Item: The ARC should determine if the rhythm, massing and articulation of the Osos Street elevation is consistent with the context of its setting in a historic district. Morro Street The Morro Street elevation of the project has a more residential character with a gable end roof form and front door facing the street. The building volume closest to the street is two- story stepping up to three stories beyond. Staff’s Analysis (CHC June 23rd): This form and massing strategy complements the nearby structures on the same side of the street that are Bungalow style. The main massing concern raised in the June 23rd CHC staff report with the three Morro townhomes was the awkward appearance created by cantilevered upper floor over garages and the thin columns supporting them (see Figure 6) . These townhomes also have roof decks which neighbors have raised as a concern and are inter- related to the massing discussion. The walls and railings of the deck areas, especially with the Figure 6 –Morro Street Elevations Attachment 6 PH2 - 87 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 10 earlier version of the plans shown in Exhibit 6, extended above gable ends and added to the height and bulk of the structure. The project well exceeds its minimum open space requirements as a condominium project. While staff is supportive of having sufficient usable outdoor use areas provided for project residents, there may be opportunities to scale down the roof decks, especially the three nearest Morro Street that are in close proximity to adjacent single-story buildings. Staff’s Analysis (ARC August 4th): The applicant responded to the concerns with the earlier design shown in the elevations in Figure 6 on the previous page with the modified elevation shown below in Figure 7. The main changes in response to previous and feedback and direction were: 1) Use of a more neutral color palette (buff and white rather than red); 2) Creation of a wing wall to screen the cantilevered floor area above supports; 3) Use of more substantial structural columns; and 4) Addition of a glass door with yellow awning for the entry facing the street. Figure 7. Revised Morro Street elevations for ARC Review on 8-4-14 Staff appreciates the applicant’s efforts to respond to comments, but feel that some of the solutions actually add bulk to the first floor of the building, rather than address earlier massing concerns. The following suggestions are offered: 1) Use the open railing design on the upper, right-hand side of the wing wall where the deck is located facing the street to create a less, heavy appearing elevation. 2) Add a porch extension for the entry with a complementary gable roof; 3) Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition from gable forms; and 4) Further reduce the size of the roof decks to take into consideration privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbors. Attachment 6 PH2 - 88 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 11 3.4 Architectural Style The proposed project’s architectural style is Contemporary, with both gable end and flat roof forms. This proposed architectural style is a departure from the previous Neo-Victorian style approved at the site with the 2008-2009 version of the project. The prior project took its design theme from the adjacent church and had steeply pitched roofs, rafter tails, trim pieces and window styles with a Victorian style theme. The current Contemporary style reflects more of the smaller office buildings in the vicinity in terms of its form and detailing. The surrounding neighborhood is an eclectic blend of different styles and periods of construction. The surrounding Contributing bungalows to the southeast were built in the early 1900s. The adjacent Rio Bravo apartments were built in 1918 and a Spanish lace stucco finish added a later time. The Grace Church at the corner of Pismo and Osos Street is a Spanish Revival style. Other office buildings in the vicinity are representatives of Mid- Century Modern. With this eclectic context defining the best examples of style to emulate is more challenging. Community Design Guidelines (CDG) Policy Guidance: 1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character. A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive; don’t let it become “anywhere USA.” 4. Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the city (for example, Downtown, Old Town). 6. Require design excellence for infill redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown area. 3.B.1. Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is required in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A wide range of architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance. Figure 8. 2008-2009 version of project design Attachment 6 PH2 - 89 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 12 Staff’s Analysis: With their review of an earlier version of project plans, neither the CHC nor ARC specifically recommended against a Contemporary architectural style, but did have issues with the massing and materials of project buildings. Consistent with CDG Section 1.4 cited above, the CHC mentioned that the design should respond to some of the better quality examples of architecture in the vicinity of the site. The CHC mentioned that earlier design was attractive, but not in the context of this neighborhood setting. Project architecture, even within the context of the project site, is not especially coordinated and appears as a collection of different styles. The wall facing the church appears especially stark and abrupt (Figure 9 below). The applicant has elected not to modify the elevation in response to staff comments and CHC direction. A cohesive architectural style should be selected that is consistent with the goal included in CDG 3.B.1 “to preserve not only the historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.” Figure 9. Osos Street Perspective 3.5 Colors & Materials In addition to the smooth-finish stucco and fiber cement siding shown in current plans, previous plans also included corrugated galvanized metal siding, and ribbed metal siding. The ARC recommended that the project materials palette be simplified in terms of the number of different materials proposed and that the corrugated galvanized metal siding be eliminated from use on building walls. Staff’s Analysis: Current plans respond to previous direction by eliminating metal siding. The revised Osos Street building elevation shows Corten steel on the third level, but Sheet 1 of the design response booklet updates this choice to a wood siding with the Prodema product name. The applicant’s response makes the point that the revised colors, especially the predominant Attachment 6 PH2 - 90 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 13 white color in the Osos Street elevation, were selected to pay homage to historic structures adjacent to the site and better blend in with the neighborhood. However, as was mentioned in the previous massing discussion in Section 3.3 of this report, the white color seems to accentuate, rather than diminish the building’s scale. 3.6 Parking Required & Provided Parking The office component of the project at 8,050 square feet requires a total of 26.8 parking spaces (8,050/300 = 26.8). The six two-bedroom units require two spaces each (12), the two three- bedroom units requires 2.5 spaces (5), and the one-bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces for a total of 18.5 parking spaces. The 9 residential units require 1.8 guest spaces (one per 5 units). Therefore, the total project parking requirement is 47.1 spaces. Table 2. Required Automobile Parking Use Parking Calculation Spaces Required Office 8,050/300 26.8 Six two-bedroom units 6 x 2.0 12.0 Two three-bedroom units 2 x 2.5 5.0 One one-bedroom unit 1 x 1.5 1.5 Guest parking - residential 1/5 units; 9/5 = 1.8 1.8 TOTAL 47.1 A total of 34 parking spaces are shown on plans for the project. A driveway off of Osos Street would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) on the ground floor of the podium building composed of: 1. 15 standard spaces; 2. 3 compact spaces; and 3. 10 tandem spaces The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the townhome units which have access via Morro Street. Since the parking provided does not meet ordinance standards, the applicant is requesting a 30% shared and mixed use parking reduction. The office use would require a total of 4 bicycle spaces (3 long-term in lockers; 1 short-term in a rack). The residential units require that each unit include bicycle lockers or interior space within each dwelling or garage for the storage of at least two bicycle spaces per unit (18). The residential development would require 1 short-term bicycle space in a rack. The total project bicycle requirement would be for 21 long-term spaces and 2 short-term spaces. Plans show that the project includes a total of 32 bicycle parking spaces (Sheet 12). The three townhomes off Morro Street would include two interior spaces in garages (6). There are 8 bicycle lockers on the north side of the large podium building; three for the office use and 5 for Attachment 6 PH2 - 91 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 14 the townhomes in that building. Each of these eight lockers accommodates 2 bicycles (16). There are two bicycle racks to meet short-term demand each containing 5 spaces (10). Staff’s Analysis The 2008-2009 version of the project included underground parking accessed off of Morro Street for a majority of the project’s parking requirement. The earlier version of the project did not include any parking reduction requests, but was approved with tandem parking for the residential units in the project. With the ARC’s conceptual review of project plans on December 16, 2013, the project’s parking was a focus of discussion. The fundamental issues with the parking proposal that the ARC reviewed was that the applicant was requesting both a 30% parking reduction and a majority of the parking spaces for both the office and residual uses in tandem. The general consensus with this “double-dipping” proposal was that the parking was inadequate for the mix of uses and not particularly functional. The main concern was that the tandem spaces were not freely available to be shared by multiple users at the site which is the key tenet of allowing the shared and mixed use parking reductions under the code. Figure 9. Parking Layout Comparison 12-16-13 ARC plan 8-4-14 ARC plan Attachment 6 PH2 - 92 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 15 In response to the concerns with the earlier version of the project, the applicant modified the project plans to go the podium building which enables a more efficient parking layout. The differences between the two versions of plans are included on Sheet 19 of current plans (see Figure 9 on the previous page). Residential Parking Complies with Standards: With the current proposal, each of the nine residential units would have allocated spaces consistent with code requirements. Each of the three townhomes off of Morro Street is self-contained in that they have two parking spaces in their own garages. The five sets of tandem spaces in the first level of the podium building provide complying for the five townhomes in that building. The one-bedroom unit in the podium building would have the single space adjacent to the tandem spots. Office & Guest Parking: The remaining parking in the podium building consists of 17 spaces, two motorcycle spaces, and both short-term (racks) and long-term bicycle parking (lockers). The code required parking for the office and guest parking would be a total of 28.6 spaces (26.8 + 1.8). With approval of a 10% shared parking reduction, the requirement for the office and guest spaces would be reduced to 25.74 spaces. With 10 short-term bicycle spaces provided beyond the base requirement of 2, the additional 8 spaces would qualify the project to reduce the automobile requirement by one additional space (one auto space for each additional 5 bicycle spaces provided, up to a 10% reduction). Therefore, this would reduce the automobile parking requirement down to 24.74 spaces. A shared use parking reduction (10%) may be applied for projects with common parking areas 1, which is the case for this project, however, approval of a mixed use parking reduction (up to an additional 20%) requires finding the times of maximum parking demand from various uses to not coincide 2 (e.g. residences primarily use a shared parking lot in the evening, night, and early morning while commercial uses primarily use a shared parking lot in the middle of the day). The 10% reduction is generally supported if the criterion for multiple uses is met, and the additional 20% is discretionary dependent on the characteristics and parking demands of the mix of uses Typically, the 30% parking reduction for a mixed use project would be taken off the total of the project parking requirement which in this case is 47.1 spaces. The 30% parking reduction would result in a requirement of 33 spaces, which is one space less than the 34 spaces provided. However, given how the spaces are laid out and assigned in this project, the analysis separates out the residential and office/guest spaces. 1 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.B: Shared parking reduction. Where two or more uses share common parking areas, the total number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an administrative use permit. Where shared parking is located on more than one parcel, affected parties must record an agreement governing the shared parking, to the satisfaction of the Director. 2 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.C: Mixed-use parking reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up to 20%, in addition to the shared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. Attachment 6 PH2 - 93 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 16 The Planning Commission found that the criterion for the 10% shared parking reduction is met, but that the criterion for the additional 20% reduction for offset times of demand could not be made since there would be overlap between the peak times of the residential and office uses. Instead, the Planning Commission recommended that the additional parking differential be made up by approval of an automobile trip reduction program 3. There is no upper threshold in terms of a percentage set in the code for the automobile trip reduction program reduction. Therefore, the remaining differential of 8 parking spaces between the 25 spaces required and 17 provided can be approved through this provision of the code. The Planning Commission supported the modified parking proposal as providing a compact and efficient parking proposal which is appropriate for the site’s location adjacent to the downtown core and a half-block outside of the in-lieu fee parking district and from the Marsh Street Parking garage. Parking provided in the project given the site’s location within a half-block of both the Marsh Street Parking structure and the Downtown Parking District where on-site parking is not necessarily required and in-lieu fees can be paid. Conclusion: Per the Planning Commission’s directive, staff supports approval of some parking reductions to accommodate the parking provided. However, staff finds that the applicant’s submitted transportation demand management plan (Attachment 7) has not yet demonstrated how fewer parking spaces for site uses will be successfully managed to meet demand and not cause impacts to surrounding properties. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On August 19, 2008, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the prior version of the project. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. In this case, the revised project description is updated through the Addendum approved by the City Council on June 10, 2014 and documentation is provided that no new significant environmental impacts are created by the modified project. The ARC may review the Addendum and MND for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. 3 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.D: Automobile trip reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life. The applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction, including innovative project design, transportation demand management (tdm), or incentives, which will reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the site. These may include, but are not limited to programs such as car-sharing, employer-paid transit passes, cashouts (i.e. trip reduction incentive plans), or off-peak work hours. Attachment 6 PH2 - 94 Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street) Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014 Page 17 5.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. Like the Addendum and MND referenced in Section 4.0 on the previous page, the ARC may review previous correspondences received for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. Attachment 8 contains a letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown on the project. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project, based on findings of consistency of the design with the Community Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to conditions. 6.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic District. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Resolution Attachment 2: Vicinity Map & Reduced-size project plans Attachment 3: 11-25-13 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes Attachment 4: 12-16-13 ARC Follow-up letter & minutes Attachment 5: City Council Resolution No. 10531 approving rezoning and VTM 2928 Attachment 6: 6-23-14 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes Attachment 7: Applicant’s transportation demand management plan Attachment 8: Letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown Distributed to ARC: 11” x 17” colored project plans Attachment 6 PH2 - 95 Attachment 7 PH2 - 96 Attachment 7 PH2 - 97 Attachment 7 PH2 - 98 Attachment 7 PH2 - 99 Attachment 7 PH2 - 100 Attachment 7 PH2 - 101 Attachment 7 PH2 - 102 Attachment 7 PH2 - 103 Attachment 8 PH2 - 104 Attachment 8 PH2 - 105 Attachment 8 PH2 - 106 Attachment 8 PH2 - 107 Attachment 8 PH2 - 108 Attachment 8 PH2 - 109 Attachment 8 PH2 - 110 Attachment 8 PH2 - 111 Attachment 8 PH2 - 112 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S ACTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONTAINING NINE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND APPROVING A 10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND AUTOMOBILE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, for conceptual review of Planning Application ARC 96-13, a mixed-use project with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area and continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 4, 2014, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final approval and continued action with six directional items; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2014, and granted final design approval to the mixed-use project; and WHEREAS, Alice Davis of 1322 Morro Street filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, Stewart and Diane Jenkins of 1336 Morro Street filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 10, 2014, for the purpose of considering the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission’s action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Attachment 9 PH2 - 113 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 2 1. As designed and conditioned by this architectural review approval, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structure promotes the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing historic district and complements the character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City’s Community Design Guidelines, which encourage projects that are pedestrian-oriented, and have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures. 3. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A., Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B. because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas. 4. The project conforms to the general plan policies, which encourage mixed-use projects that provide needed residential units close to the downtown core. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 D., Automobile Trip Reduction, in that it satisfies the intent of that section ".... to reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life." The applicant through their submitted trip reduction plan and on-going commitment to rely on alternative transportation for commuting practices has demonstrated that their provided automobile, bicycle and motorcycle parking will meet the parking needs of their use. 5. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected that some trips will be consolidated for existing and proposed uses because of the range of different uses at the site. 6. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on August 19, 2008. On June 10, 2014, the City Council approved an Addendum to document the revised project description and eliminate no longer relevant mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby denies the appeals and upholds the Architectural Review Commission’s action to grant final approval to the mixed-use project (ARC 96-13) with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area, with incorporation of the following conditions: Attachment 9 PH2 - 114 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 3 Conditions: 1. The project is subject to all of the pertinent conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures approved through City Council Resolution No. 10531 (2014 Series) along with the review of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to reconfigure the land use and zoning boundaries within the overall site area and Tentative Tract Map to create both office and residential condominiums. 2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. The color board for the project buildings presented at the meeting was supported by the Architectural Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 4. Include a detail for the eaves of the Morro Street elevation that show an extended roof overhang to the gable ends. Replace the canvas shed awning facing Morro Street with a small shed roof with detailing similar to other structures in the neighborhood. 5. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Plans shall clearly show the details of all windows and storefronts. Variegated, fritted glazing shall be used for the window panes on the left-hand side of the Osos Street elevation. 7. Plans shall clearly show details on all railings, including their width, color, and finish. 8. Plans submitted for a building permit clearly show how lockable private storage of 200 cubic feet for each unit is provided. 9. A specific sign program for the office component of the project shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director may approve the sign program if it is consistent with applicable sections of the sign regulations and is in keeping with the character and context of the building. The Attachment 9 PH2 - 115 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 4 Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the project. 10. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare.” 11. The applicant shall maximize planting around the P.G.&E. transformer cabinet and work with P.G.&E. to explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south property line to the review of the Community Development Director. 12. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 13. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosure on the Morro Street side of the project shall be included in working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development and Utilities Departments. The ultimate design shall be consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines. 14. Final details for the trash room in the larger podium building shall be included in working drawings to the review and approval of San Luis Garbage Company and the Community Development and Utilities Departments. Plans shall show the planned path for the bin from the designated trash room to the street and any needed frontage improvements such as a ramp. Specifications for maintenance shall be required so that the pathway is routinely cleaned after trash pick-ups. 15. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The plan shall also include hardscape materials for walkways, patios, and terraces. Attachment 9 PH2 - 116 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 5 16. To provide compensatory planting for tree removals, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive tree planting mitigation program which includes both on-site and off-site planting locations to the approval of the City Arborist and Community Development Director. 17. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 18. Decks and balconies within the project shall not be utilized for the storage needs of individual units. However, outdoor patio furniture, potted plants and small barbecues may be placed in these areas. 19. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping in a first class condition. 20. Individual tenant spaces and the overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. Fire 21. The applicant shall provide a means of building identification from the public road in which each building is addressed. 22. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. 23. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for the commercial building (inclusive of apartment), either a 13R or 13D system will be required for the residential component, depending on final product, please designate a CBC occupancy (R2 or R3) on plans. 24. Fire Main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located within 40 feet of Morro or Osos Street. Please show location of Backflow device and FDC on plans. Attachment 9 PH2 - 117 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 6 Housing 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordability agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo that the one 1-bedroom unit shall be deed- restricted to very-low income households for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded against the title of the property. Transportation 26. The applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Directors that includes supportable programs that will reduce vehicle trips to the site. 27. The applicant shall submit a revised plan showing how long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards. A minimum four foot wide path of travel shall be provided to all bicycle parking spaces. Additional bicycle parking (above what is required) may be proposed on the project frontages if adequate pedestrian circulation is maintained and they result in no line of sight issues. Specific to this project, the plan shall show: 1) how complying bicycles parking will be provided in the Morro Street garages given space restrictions; 2) how bicycle lockers will accommodate two spaces without having to remove a bicycle; 3) one of the lockers for the office component set aside the affordable flat. Public Works 28. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the parking and driveway standards. The plans shall show all space, bay, and aisle dimensions. Additional space width may be required for spaces with obstructions or limitations with maneuverability. 29. Details of the security gate, access controls, and accommodation for offsite residents that have access rights through the site, shall be approved along with plans submitted for a building permit. 30. The building plan submittal shall include an overall site plan to show how access and maneuverability is provided through the access easement to the existing off-site parking located at 958 Pismo. 31. The building plan submittal shall include complete details for the public right-of-way for both the Osos Street and Morro Street frontages. The plans shall show all existing and Attachment 9 PH2 - 118 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 7 proposed improvements. The plans shall include the existing and proposed metered parking spaces. The plan shall consider line of sight distances, curbside trash pick-up requirements, red curb areas, any special parking designations, and shall maximize the number of metered parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The scope of work may include the removal, relocation, and installation of parking meter posts and the corresponding pavement markings per City Engineering Standards. 32. The proposed demolitions, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach construction on Morro shall provide for an orderly transition to the existing frontage improvements located at 1322 and 1336 Morro. 33. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. No additional utility poles shall be set in the public right-of-way and no wires shall be extended across the proposed project to serve adjacent properties unless otherwise approved to the satisfaction of the City and the serving utility companies. Utilities 34. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the City water and sewer mains. Each proposed unit shall have a separate water meter. 35. If the property’s existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be abandoned per City standards. Other 36. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim." Attachment 9 PH2 - 119 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 8 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Attachment 9 PH2 - 120