Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2001, PH1 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR A NEW OFFICE Council j Ac,EnoA Repont C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director :"'u Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR A NEW OFFICE BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET AT 956 WALNUT STREET (ARC 168-00, David Scarry, Applicant) CAO RECOMMENDATION Uphold the action of the ARC and deny the appeal. DISCUSSION SIT)L' Data Summary Address: 956 Walnut Street Applicant: David Scarry Appellant: John Atiya Zoning: Office (0) General Plan: Office `' '*� " "I Environmental status: Exempt ` Situation On June 4, 2001, on a vote of 4 to 3 (Commissioners Novak, Lopes, and Schultz voting no), the Architectural Review Commission granted final approval with conditions to the design for a new 5,000-square-foot office building with a maximum height of 35 feet. On June 15, 2001, the City received an appeal objecting to the building height. On June 15, 2001, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved a use permit for the office building, subject to resolution of the architectural design. The person appealing the ARC's action has also submitted an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action, which is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on July 25`". In both cases, the primary issue is building height. The zoning regulations allow a buildings to be 25 feet tall in the Office zone, and up to 35 feet tall with approval of an administrative use permit. The zoning regulations also allow the ARC to act on certain site development exceptions when a project requires architectural review in addition to a use permit. In this case, the ARC approved a 35-foot tall building design. The City Council acts on appeals of ARC decisions. � -1 Council Agenda Report—956 Walnut Appeal of ARC action on 168-00 Page 2 Site description The 11,381 square foot lot lies between Highway 101 and Walnut Street. It slopes gradually from the eastern front corner to the western rear corner. There is a locust tree near the front of the site which is proposed to be removed. The site is developed with a contractor's yard. On the adjacent uphill property is a four-unit, two-story apartment building. The adjacent downhill property at 878 Walnut is developed with a dentist office and three residential units. Plans for redeveloping this adjacent site have been approved by the ARC. (Attachment 3) Across the street are the Economy Motel, apartments and houses. Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure on site and replace it with a new 5,000-square-foot office building. The existing structure, which is used as an office for the contractor's yard, is not historic and is believed to have been constructed in the 1950's. The new building would have two floors of office space and would be 35 feet tall so that some of the required parking can be located beneath and behind the building. (See reduced plans in Attachment 3.) Building Height If approved to be 35 feet tall, this would be the tallest building on Walnut Street between Santa Rosa and Chorro Streets. The apparent building height will be offset somewhat by the fact that the site is on the downhill side of the street and that this area of Walnut Street itself is downhill from surrounding properties to the east and south. The adjacent building to the northeast is two- story. From the southwest, looking uphill, the building will appear at its tallest, especially since existing and ARC-approved redevelopment on the adjacent site to the southwest are single-story. Section B on sheet A-2 of the plans provides a partial cross section through the project site and the adjacent properties. The zoning regulations require that any approval of new commercial construction in the Office zone be based on certain findings. One of the required findings for approval that directly relates to building height is: The location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. Visual Analysis The applicant has submitted four "before and after" views of the proposed project. Included in the package are a site plan indicating the locations from which photos were taken and a "context board" with examples of other development in the vicinity of the project site. Photocopies of the before and after images are attached. Full-size color copies will be available at the meeting. (Attachment 4) (� 1 Council Agenda Report—956 Walnut Appeal of ARC action on 168-00 Page 3 The visual analysis helps show to what extent the proposed building will dominate this stretch of Walnut Street until a substantial number of other properties in the vicinity redevelop. The "Context Board" submittal of photographs of nearby development provides examples architecture in the vicinity. While some of the existing buildings shown are larger in terms of square-footage, none of them are as tall as the proposed building would be. Auuellant's Position The City has received a letter from Rob Strong, representing Mr. John Atiya, who owns the Economy Motel at 852 Morro Street, across Walnut Street from the project site. Mr. Atiya is objecting to the requested building height. He is concerned with the proposed building height's impact on views, privacy and property value. He would prefer that no exception be granted to allow a 35-foot tall building where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum height. The Economy Motel property is just over a half acre in size. It has views of both Bishop's Peak and Cerro San Luis. The new office building project would block some — but not all — of the views to Bishop's Peak. Views of Cerro San Luis would not be affected by this project. Mr. Attiya's property is zoned R4 which allows for a 35-foot maximum height. The letter from Mr. Strong argues that certain Land Use Element policies do not support a height exception. Neither of the policies cited provide strong support for the appeal. Policy 4.16.4 applies to properties inside the downtown core. This property is at the periphery of the downtown planning area (see map in Attachment 2). While policy 4.18 does apply to buildings outside the core, it allows for building heights up to 35 feet. Land Use Element policies that would better support the appeal are policy 4.13, which states that new downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them, and policy 2.2.4. which states that in designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. Summary of ARC Action The ARC considered two previous letters submitted on behalf of Mr. Atiya (see Attachments 8&9), as well as the testimony of several members of the public, the staff report, and the visual analysis presented by the applicant's representative. Overall, the commissioners liked the project architecture but were split on the issue of building height. Draft minutes from the May 21 and June 4 meetings are attached which indicate some of the concerns with the project (Attachment 6). The action taken by the ARC is outlined in the attached letter to the applicant dated June 8, 2001 (Attachment 5). Z-3 r Council Agenda Report-956 Walnut Appeal of ARC action on 168-00 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review. Continuing the item would give the Council the benefit of the Planning Commission's input since the administrative use permit is also being appealed. On the other hand, taking an action should eliminate the need for Planning Commission review since the issue of building height is the same in both cases. 2. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and denying the ARC approval of the project design. This will force the applicant to redesign his project to meet the 25-foot height limit and re-apply for architectural review of a new project. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Map of downtown planning area 3. Reduced project plans 4. Photocopies of the visual study 5. Letter outlining ARC action dated June 8, 2001 6. Draft minutes of the May 21 and June 4 ARC meetings 7. Appeal statement 8. Letter from Rob Strong dated May 16, 2001 9. Letter from Keith Owens dated May 16, 2001 10. Draft resolution upholding the appeal 11. Draft resolution denying the appeal A full-size color copy of the visual analysis and sets of full-sized ARC plans are available in the Council reading file and a t the Community Development Department. ind Use ElementArtAplyp P r i c \ o� i D�nC' D��o00 �if 11 !- iii 7 71\7^; lij= FIGURE city of ODOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA san Wes oaispo 0 CORE 51 1 /0 � _ I D I \ 133?LLS \ \ LY@L O f r ONbON _ 2 p z Y I aIn --- £ £ I To € --——gill/'I —\— --�i�� ———— ——— —— —� — 2 - J I e Z I I y4, > Z AY N �§Rn x g o � lag t q an o. STevtr D. SmvutT D —= SITE LOON orrlceBUiLpiNa rnr il'!I ARCHITECTS � 15T FLOOR PLAN HMENT I rn i I 1 so N 1 i n FI Z m I£ = D s w � I ' o , I � � I N II I I I pi I n� �$ I O O , a i d I 0 m u d A � A r > R D Z F Z Ulm �m tm D 4 yN mr m D D m I tAm m s o s t SITC. S/r�lRewRD. SmvuT S ORLC BULDING f0 FLOOR PLANS - .X } U .a�rvawrt sn.cr j � sw ws Demo.cw 1 1��� uar v ^� y =i X19 v. q/ E�II1�1 , i A9 WA .;leu - i s r ATTACHMENT 3 e i y J -_ a :r Y I / p O 1 �V ! �•Sy FEe .�. I •� o� iii •- ;� � ny ` •—•• 6RADIN& 4 =RAIN. I " ,Ij,�l STEVEN D. $TEWMT __. OfE'IG�EEUILDINb �> ,, ARE}IRECTT 1-jC AITACIIMENT o >< c � - Y ! -1 a Z o r � j J • :� I I �- i I: T r!ry?Sd •7 I 1 1 0 ' II :�e --}-- �;) mai '2 j •=� IQ I �'a � i tlt � 1 • • o u - r iSit,� i i•7+` oowOp"x) ix i�'I��n` li 1� o[ rS i-e •s: fab of] FBF �Fi s F 4 b '-1 .,� ! � ' � j�y �y1: f.� d} it ,)fi DS • s d ..IrC.,p p iii`w awvnn) ,[��. a A \t { I It A � Q` • •10 •w LL__ 4•yI lju E ?( 0�y Ow 1 O 1 L E. _ �9f Y nig > e i 51�na �•[ Z °>iwni R�,In ) fl it � i �� 1� i i I y• �(.).L ii � i :' 02,11.15-0=? �i?��". tw3:5'>4.7sai�2 2€ii• d.._ __ I I •n !s• ) o • i c t . .L .Y '�-" J i t• Or n Y )nTr� !-x#, i,j0♦ 4T I. AQoi I� ^r 2.0 t ,u, o . :'t.: i^ •ii •5.�si r i•1 '���J:"'.1 _ I • w n t y • o Fi�.� �g `f T� �a I Ii n e tp,;t{1 � .. �i a° i uezu xn• zz°no z ,rr p1 :!4I{ \ yw is j :ii•"'7ii'o ia`.r'e: in'yo�g Y 2 i��r �,i 1: n3 xf \ T• °T i1 O x 46-i 1 i� �• i�� I Ili on a� or i s} bll i°A , I1, i ip •r R i' � c ko > . i i V9 00 Q T i a a cQiw y Y STEVEN P.GAMINITI GE BLDG.FOR DAVID SGARRY PLANTING F 4 WALNUT STREET IAS nRKPn f-A 4 3 dlY 1 "4;C� A,;q .�M *+LAY•^;\:,t�.� t YY. IxC s ..iii--��•T'To 4 ilk, A . wvet H ` S •` , 1 Ile R �t�J✓ [ i' rlt 41 iJ.e{ �•.\%ice�-'�'.1. '. if - it „lu•i '� r ; 4 zz "01 tt R v 'eta•"�>� .^+C�-•',+.�!'��� .c.� ~��'?,'`:�µ`a41 r-., Arf 2G33c"581a ` r: y� 1 n :f i rt i s o" sus% . Za I r 74, Yffi v� 1 41t 'M IY • 4 t . ! N x IIa Td•/v "` YJ x� I ' t i , t ZLS , z 4 i .yr t � 4�•A -r y z .. z eiI- �yf n c -� wL9 f , Ilk •- ':,, ' ,rS i �(� ` k ,0.7 v w �`� 1 r�r XA s.-• r= .fes F.1 4 LWr_ 1 - r. ! Y� l 1 - t10 ry a �1�, joi 14 5�1 .. ttJ .X ✓ 1 t ,l 1 9�T 7cY ti��� S(1 ':� �'• 4. 3a:11L It li .1 ' tk � A 1.rYn ,r t 7 1 A T lu Il uti'r uq j i'� •Q W J ir♦1• ♦J .S'A1 Z'�f♦nt _' � _ . Tyr�J .0 s3"q �,"�j��-• r.. �is ` C�� /... as L S c FS d t ik 14 4 17 Lys I�n _ 1 a J � 1 Y / 1 '1� f IN♦�, VL l I1 { I♦ �� II_•i5 .I �. 1 1 4gu.' � .y N„Y� F1� � t � ♦ �ntlti �. r ( r�y. %!lit` :•r.'%�iV v.' t" .r.. .ice :+ •�. ////fff� .a� = �{ ,; 6yy Q 4 T/�y', f /, •1 FIT' J 11 J11" i Jy�15r . }�C L \ :.:yip�":.:�•::_ '., .A .y ��. ♦ tys '�'•�-_ 11 a•�'�.. r � III r \ ,r ,u rrR � r ('.\ f 3 JF r f. � J A t J z I ATTACHMENT 5 Iilllllllllllllllll I���;���� �IIIIIIIIIII� t city of SAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 12, 2001 David Scarry 1130 Grove Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 168-00: 956 Walnut Street Review of a demolition of an existing structure and construction of a 5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a 35-foot high building where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and reduced street yard from 15 feet to 11 feet Dear Mr. Scarry: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 4, 2001, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. As conditioned, the project design is appropriate in the Office zone and will be compatible with surrounding development. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Section 15332 (Infill Development). 3. A maximum height of 35 feet is reasonably necessary to accommodate adequate on-site parking and allow the building to be located toward the front of the lot, rather than having a parking lot up front with a building at the rear of the lot. The added height is also consistent with General Plan goals for infill development and compact urban form. 4. A minimum street yard setback of 11 feet where 15 feet would otherwise be required is appropriate for the entry feature only as a means of clarifying the entry point and adding visual interest to the street elevation. 5. An exception to the City standards for parking lot planter dimensions will be offset by conditions of approval requiring strategically located screen walls and additional landscaping to screen views of parked vehicles consistent with the intent of the Parking and Driveway Standards. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. —�U ARC 168-00 ATTACHMENT Page 2 - - --- --N 5 6. As proposed and conditioned, the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 7. As proposed and conditioned, the project includes landscaping and yards thatide- -aat}adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in the nearby residential areas. 8. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not diminish the quality of views toward the site from Highway 101. Conditions 1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the following to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director: a. Include some wrought iron or other open style balustrade in the exterior stairs to reduce their mass and better tie into other decorative details on the building. b. Explore providing a foundation beneath the front portion of the stair that wraps around the elevator since landscaping underneath the stair in this area will be difficult to establish and maintain. c. Provide a tiled wainscotting or another means of articulating the base of the building. d. Provide a means of better articulating the recessed panels on the elevator tower if these areas are not used for public art, such as tile work or spandrel glass. e. Use a slightly darker building color and/or provide a trim color for the window sills and arched recesses around the windows and doors. f. Use a smooth plaster finish. g. Consider including some decorative medallions or ceramic tiles on the building facades. h. Provide some additional tile-capped posts in the deck railing at the rear of the building. i. Enlarge the front planter at the base of the building between the pedestrian entry and the parking entry. Consider extending it out further from the building, using a less rectangular configuration, and/or incorporating a wall fountain or some other decorative backdrop. j. The stamped concrete walkways should be colored to match the the elements elsewhere in the project (e.g. roof, deck areas). ARC 168-00 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 5 k. Alter the parking lot layout to increase the width of perimeter planters, or . submit a revised plan that includes screen walls and trellising to better screen the parking area, especially along the southwesterly property line. I. Include more and taller shrubs and small trees in the front planter at the eastern corner of the site to better screen the view of cars from the sidewalk. m. Replace the Jacaranda proposed in the large parking lot planter with one or two large evergreen trees or some choice of trees that will soften the view of the building from the freeway. n. Surround the low wall at the edge of the front seating area with a grove planting of Melaleucas and an under story of shrubs such as Pittosporum tobira variegata. o. Locate the street trees as close to the sidewalk as possible to provide a canopy for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall obtain use permit approval for construction of a new office building in the Office zone. 3. Construction drawings submitted with building permit application shall include noise mitigation consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Workbook. 4. Demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majority of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. 5. The Fire Department Connection shall be readily accessible, visible from the street and the location coordinated with the Fire Department prior to installation. 6. An easement must be created for the new pipe directing site runoff to the existing 24" CMP. 7. Details of site lighting and bicycle parking shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director. 8. The street yard setback shall be 15 feet except that the entry feature may have a setback of no less than 11 feet. Code Requirements 1. The new driveway ramp does not show the sidewalk wrapping around the ramp, per ADA standards. The driveway ramp shall comply with City Standard No. 2110. �v�c ARC 168-00 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 2. Thereis a City sewer main on the adjacent westerly ,parcel. Although it is fairly deep, the building plan must show it and the associated easement as it relates to . the proposed offsite storm drain. Appropriate details shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and Public Works Department on the building/grading plans. An offsite easement is needed to accommodate the storm drain. 3. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Whitney Mcllvaine at (805) 781-7164. Sincerely, /Ronald Whisenand Development Review Manager cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office DRAFT ATTACHMENT 6 —.. SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 21, 2001 - 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Zeljka Howard, Hana Novak, Rob Schultz, Michael Boudreau, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Mark Rawson Staff: Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine PROJECTS: 1. 956 Walnut Street. ARC 168-00; Review of a demolition of an existing structure and construction of a 5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a 35-foot high building where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and reduced street yard from 15 feet to 11 feet; O zone; David Scarry, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission continue this project with direction. David Scarry, project architect, gave a history of the project design. John Knight, RRM Architects, discussed building height; visual analysis; zoning regulations regarding building height; and criteria for findings to enable a 35-foot tall building. Steven Stewart, project architect, was open to staff recommendations except the recommendation regarding the street yard setback and stepping back the upper floor. The public hearing was opened. John Attiya objected to the 35-foot building height. Rob Strong recommended that visual study include a two-story option. He felt the design should not have assumed approval of height exception. He mentioned regional transportation plans for widening Highway 101. He is concerned this project will set a bad precedent. A Draft ARC Minutes May 21, 2001 AT NHAPUZI 6 Page 2 ------ Kevin Owens, attorney for John Attiya, submitted another view from the freeway. He said the project would change the character of the city as viewed from freeway, and is too much building for the site. Rob Strong submitted a petition opposing the project based on story poles erected on project site. Richard Root, 601 Hillside Court, Arroyo Grande, owns the adjacent 4-plex and supports the proposed project, but is concerned with side yard screening. He has no problem with the height of the building. Joe Nichols owns property at 979 Walnut and is concerned with overall size and mass of street elevation. Would prefer a two-story structure. Jim Brock, 663 Osos Street, is concerned with loss of view and traffic. He is also concerned with the availability of on-street parking and the view from the freeway. Abigail Thom owns theroperty at the southeast corner of Morro and Peach. She remembers the Economy Motel sign. She likes the design of the Scarry project. She suggested that the Economy Motel be declared historic since it is representative of small motels during the war yea s. John Freeman is a dentist and prospective tenant and supports the project. Scott Stankey, who prepared the visual exhibits, has a background in. architecture and his. objective was to be objective. He objects to the submittal of photo mockups submitted by John Attiya's attorney. John Knight said if you can't allow 35 feet between area with 35 feet height allowance and freeway, where is 35 feet appropriate? COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes asked John Knight about View 2, and Steven Stewart about the need for exterior stairs. Steven Stewart said that exterior stairs reduce the parking requirement. Rob Strong said two stories is also "compact urban form." '1 c Draft ARC Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 6 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Schultz said there are lots of exceptions, which indicates the project is overly ambitious. He mentioned that the site is within the downtown area although not within the downtown core and cited General Plan Land Use Element 4.13, 4.16.4 and 4.18. He said he might support height exception without all other exceptions. Commr. Boudreau likes the building and the potential view, and also the use of vertical design elements. Commr. Lopes likes the architecture and stepping back third floor, but doesn't like the dominance of the exterior stairs. He doesn't support a height exception. He objected to a parking lot layout that crowds perimeter landscape planters. He agreed with Commr. Schultz that the project can be redesigned to lower height. Commr. Howard said she was of two minds since the development regulations did not take into account grade differences in vicinity. Will set a precedent. Low density development also has a price. No problem with other exceptions, but height exception is clearly the biggest issue. She said that through some redesign the project could be approved with a lesser height exception. Commr. Novak was okay with the street yard exception, but had a problem with the height exception. She referenced roles of ARC Commissioners in advisory. body handout. Concerned with potential of Hwy. 101 expansion and elimination of landscape screening and was concerned with the impact on the Hwy. 101 corridor. Commr. Stevenson was concerned with any notion of the ARC's role as policing protection of private views. He was not concerned with height as view blocking and likes that the building helps to screen parking. He was not objecting to height exception, but he has some other design concerns and felt the doctored-up photos presented by Kevin Owens were inappropriate. Commr. Boudreau said there was more about this project that he liked than not. Commr. Lopes would support a continuance and felt the ARC should look at impact of height on ultimate Hwy. 101 corridor. He does not support a height exception. Commr. Boudreau said that making stairs more transparent would help alleviate the impact of building mass. Planting could help screen from freeway. Several motions to either approve or deny the project deadlocked in 3-3 votes. DraftARC Minutes May 1, 2001 ATTACHMENT Page 6 On motion by Commr. Schultz, seconded by Commr. Novak, the ARC continued this item to the June 4th meeting. AYES: Commrs. Novak, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson and Schultz NOES: Commr. Howard ABSENT`. Commr. Rawson 2. 682 Palm treet. ARC 114-99; Review of revisions to approved plans (parking and building ele tion); R-3-H zone; Mission College Preparatory, applicant. John Shoals Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval to the plan revisions with findings and conditions. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Brian Starr, project architect, described the ch Apges to the original approved project. He submitted noise information regarding the chil /boiler equipment. The wall lights will be removed. He explained the structural and fir rotection reasons for eliminating the continuous clerestory windows. On motion by Commr. Novak, seconded by Commr. How the ARC granted final approval to the project. Modifications with direction regarding a smaller windows in the west elevation. AYES: Commrs. Novak, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson and Schul NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Rawson Draft ARC Minutes i ATTACHMENT 6 June 4, 2001 Page 3 4. 956 Walnut Street. ARC 168-00; Review of a demolition of an existing structure and construction of a 5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a 35-foot high building where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and reduced street. yard from 15 feet to 11 feet; O zone; David Scarry, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval with conditions. Steven Stewart, the project architect, John Knight, the representing planner, and the applicant, David Scarry, were present. John Knight stated the applicant's request for project approval. The public hearing was opened. John Atiya, the property owner across Walnut Street, and Rob Strong, representative for John Atiya were present. Mr. Strong and Mr. Atiya objected to the proposed building height. The public hearing closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Rawson supports the height exception given the context of site. Commr. Boudreau would like to see a significant tree or trees planted in rear parking lot planter to soften the view of the building from the highway. He supports the building height. Commr. Schultz doesn't support the height exception because it is contrary to LUE policies 4.13, 4.164, 4.18. He feels the site could be developed successfully with a 2- story building. Commr. Howard supports the height exception and feels that good architecture doesn't need to be hidden. She did not feel that the project would seriously affect privacy and public views. Commr. Novak does not support the height exception and does not support intrusion of building views on Highway 101. Commr. Lopes said that his job is to uphold General Plan policies and that the third floor creates privacy issues. He also felt that the third floor windows exacerbate privacy concerns. i Draft ARC Minutes ATTACHMENT 6 June 4, 2001 Page 4 Commr. Stevenson liked the project architecture and focused Commission discussion on staff-recommended conditions of approval. On motion by Commr. Rawson, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC granted final approval to the project with conditions. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Boudreau, Stevenson and Howard NOES: Commr. Novak, Lopes and Schultz ABSENT: None - �a9 —� RECEIVED JUN i 2001 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as specified in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (attached), the undersigned hereby appeals the decision of ( 1� ATTACHMENT 7 A�1�� R Cc 1,vt,' Rg,�'Xew (LGOV1 kS5 to h rendered on )uAe- y , 7-o0\ , which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) I Io�� 2Xcel�hun � 25 � - allow 3)C-� IMAX S'j1 NG% The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: MAks `-T Jaiv\2 on _1v�e -1,zoc�l Name/Departent (nate) The appellant agrees to appear and/or'send a representative to appear on his/her %bhalU lCp r o �-� c, ��+ti owHe� of CSS Z Si o ant) y ��t0U SLV,Ci� ( 9 na ure Appe cov's K 1 y S G U orrlttlg5\Je �rtve ,6C1;'-'k&'0,C* Namef itle Mailing Address and Zip Code OkWz-z �3t9s 1 l O y X83155 Home Phone Work Phone Representative: go� 5JM14 IC'P Name/Title Mailing Address and.Zip Code This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head City Clerk.(originaQ (tel) �C� STRONG PLANNING SERVICES ATTACI>M&JB STONG. A.I.C.P. June 8, 2001 RECEIVED JUN 11 2001 Mayor Settle and City Council Members SLO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal of ARC A168-00, 956 Walnut Street Dear Mayor and City Council: On June 4, 2001 the ARC, by a 4-3 vote, approved a 35-foot height exception for a proposed three-story office building at 956 Walnut Street, across the street from the property of my client, Mr. John Atiya. The northeast side of Walnut Street, including the Atiya property at 652 Morro Street, is zoned R-4, High Density Residential while the southwest side is zoned 0, Office. The latter adjoins freeway 101 and is visible from both north and southbound regional traffic. The Office zone allows a maximum height of 25 feet, , unless an administrative use permit in compliance with Section 17.22.010,Table 9, Footnote 11 is approved. It is this use permit, and the required findings that we are appealing. In particular we believe that the proposed building unnecessarily exceeds the two-story character of the established neighborhood and significantly affects existing and potential privacy and enjoyment of the nearby residential areas. The deciding vote came after a comment that the proposed building was"surrounded by three story structures". The fact is that this will be the only three-story building within the three blocks on Walnut between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets. The General Plan Land Use Element policy LU4.16.4 states: "New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces and defer to a few tall, `landmark'buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories. Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight and street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall." In policy 4.18, regarding commercial buildings outside the core, the paragraph concludes: "However, buildings should not exceed two stores(about 35 feet in height)." Relevant to existing and potential primacy and enjoyment of views from nearby residential areas we presented the following facts: The proposed three-story building adjoins a two-story 4 unit residential building to the northeast which the north side windows of the third story as well as the second story will overlook. This more than doubles the interface of office windows adjoining residential. X35=�3/SS 14500 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE,ATMCADERO, CA 93422 • (805)442.9459-• Foix(805)438-3158 1 '�1 - ` ATTACHMENT It is directly across the street from the Atiya property known as the Economy Motel which are currently single story residential units, that will be redeveloped in the future. The area is zoned for high density residential. Future townhomes,condominiums or apartments will probably be a mixture of two and three story buildings with patios, balconies,windows and yards oriented toward the south and west where sunlight and attractive views are currently enjoyed. But all the front windows of the third story office will look down on the southwest facing patios, balconies and windows that would occur on the Atiya property, substantially interfering with residential privacy. Again this doubles the interface problems. To add insult to injury the 35-foot height at the front of the lot will block views of Bishop Peak from potential visibility from the future residential units. The only way to recapture part of the blocked view would be to propose maximum height on the upper portions of the Atiya property interfering with the views from the adjoining residential areas on Osos and Peach Streets. What makes this split decision most objectionable is that a three-story structure on the Scarry property is unnecessary as well as inconsistent with City policy. We demonstrated,that the same ground level parking and a 5000 square foot office building on a single elevated level could be constructed on this 11000 sq.ft. parcel, without height exception which would make the building more consistent with its one and two story neighbors and more compatible with adjoining residences to the north and est. The ARC seemed to ignore the concern of the residential owner because the proposed office building is an attractive architectural design. We believe that a similar design conforming to the 25 foot maximum height would be even more attractive and more compatible with adjoining residential uses both existing and proposed. We ask the City Council to deny the Use Permit for height exception because the project is an unnecessary intrusion on views and privacy of the neighboring residential areas. incere i Rob Strong, CP cc: fax to Kevin Owen John Atiya y-3� FROM : STS FAX NO. : 6054383155 May. 16 2001 e3:01PM P1 EEM&dEE1MiMME STRONG PLANNING SERVICES Roe STRONG, A.I.C.P. May 16, 2001 Post-it'Fax Note 7g;WaTesaofToArchttectural Review Commission c'�D`c/o Community Development Department Phone#Re: 956 Walnut 5treet, San Luis Obispo ( 3 Office project Dear ARC Commissioners: arra ' . 8 The Walnut Street Associates project at 956 Walnut.5treet involves an 11,381 sq:ft lot with approximately 95 frontage on Walnut Street and lot depth of 103'to 122'adjoining Freeway 101. The site is zoned'O'for offioe and/or residential uses. The zoning ordinance requires administrative use permit for construction of non-residential structures in the'O'zone. Building height maximum is 25 feet unless up to 35 feet is approved by administrative use permit and street yard minimum is 15 feet unless use permit approves reduction to 10 feet minimum. Section 17.22.010,Table 91 Note 11, states: "In order to approve a use permit,the Director must make each Of the following findings: a. That the location, orientation, height and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas; b. That the project's location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas; and, c. That the project includes Landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sttes in nearby residential areas•. The proposed site plan provides an 11'to 15'minimum street(front)yard, minimum 10'side yards, and greater than minimum rear yard ranging from 34'to 48'(10'minimum).. The bulk of the ground level,except approximately 3,000 s.f. for landscape and ground level structural elements is paved for 22 parking spaces,the minimum required for.proposed office uses,which occupy almost 5000 sqA The building coverage(not calculated on the plan)is estimated as approximately 2500 sq.ft.on two floors, approximately 22%compared to the maximum 60% . allowed by the'&zone. It is this inappropriate design,essentially a three-story structure containing 5000 sq.ft. instead of a single office level over parking that requires the exceptional building height of 35'rather than 25'. Based on lot size and maximum coverage, a larger portion of the site could be occupied by structure,decks, balconies, porches and elevator: It is obvious that 5000 sq.ft. gross floor area building on a singlelevel would constitute 44%coverage still devoting the ground level to parking. The excessive three-story, 35'maximum building height is most objectionable to the residential owners and occupants northeast of Walnut and Morro Street,east of the project. The exceptional height US00 MORNINGSIOE DPivE, ATASCADERO. CA.93422 • (805) 542-9150 • FAX(805) 438-3158 -Z-33 rROM STS FAX NO. : 8054383155 May. 16 2001 03:03PM P2 A]TA"&4r 8 May 16, 2001 Architectural Review Commission Page Two would block potential views of Bishop Peak from existing and future residential units. The late afternoon and sunset will be obstructed from nearby residents due to the height and mass of the proposed new office structure. And, contrary to required finding,the three-story offices with windows facing east toward the yards and balconies of residential units will significantly affect privacy across the street and overlooking adjoining apartments. The required findings cannot be made and the administrative use permit should be denied. Daytime office occupants of both raised floor levels of.a 35'tall building, particularly the 12 front facing windows will overlook existing private residential yard areas across the street. The primary orientation of future residential units would also be toward the south and west where sunlight and views of landmark open space are currently enjoyed. Adjacent residential to the north and east are generally at higher elevation, and their privacy would be affected if new office or residential development oriented toward this direction: only urban structures would be viewed. Even more significant to the entire community, and dearly adverse to the attractive open vista of the City from Freeway 101, is the unnecessary visual intrusion that this excessive 35 foot tall structure proposes. By itself it would be the only three-story building along the east edge of the freeway, but worse yet is the precedent it creates. If other future buildings along the west side of Walnut Street also propose more than the current 25'maximum,the view from the freeway will be the backs of many buildings, also obstructing views and intruding on residential privacy to the east of Walnut Street. In summary, the proposed three-story office building's excessive and unnecessary height and mass significantly and adversely affect privacy in adjoining and nearby residential areas. The parking design lacks adequate landscape screening and yards particularly to the northeast and places 9 of the 22 cars only inches from the adjoining apartment. If a single S000 sq.ft office level over parking were proposed, It could comply with the 25'maximum height, without creating the excessive"overlook"and view blockage adversely impacting nearby residential areas and Freeway 101. The ARC should deny the project as submitted and instead encourage a single level office over ground level parking with more than minimum front and side yards and more spacious parking lot design. Sincere n, Rob Strong cc: R. Kevin Owens John Atiya 13� R KEVIN OWENS - ATTORNEY ATLAW 1103 JOHNSON AVENUE,SUITE E A�A/�..-` /� SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 /94•„^x.J�M�A1e y TEL:(805)541-8700 FAX: (805)541-8702 V May 16, 2001 Architectural Review Commission Attn. Ronald Whisnand, Development Review Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Objection to Application for Use Permit A 168-00 956 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Whisnand: This office represents John H. Atiya, who is acting on behalf of John H. Atiya and The AI-Haddad Sabah Trusts (hereinafter, for convenience, collectively referred to as "Adya"), the owners of the property located at 652 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo. The following is submitted in opposition to the application for Use Permit A 168-00, concerning 956 Walnut Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Scarry Project"). Background Presently, there is a one-story residential structure situated on 956 Walnut Street. The rear of the subject parcel, which is located in the O zone, abuts Highway 101. The Atiya property at 652 Morro Street, a comer lot directly across Walnut Street from the subject parcel, is currently used as a motel comprised of several detached, single-story structures. 652 Morro Street is zoned R-4. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised predominantly of single-story, residential- type structures, some of which, particularly along Walnut Street, have been converted to professional offices. There are also some two-story, multi-unit residential and commercial office structures in the immediate area. By this Application, the applicant, David Scarry, proposes to build a new office building on the subject property, and seeks a permit to extend the maximum building height of the project to 35 feet and to reduce the frontal setback frotn 15 to 11 feet. For the 'reasons set forth below, Atiya opposes the granting of either the height or the setback variance. Objections I . Loss of Privacy. The height proposed for the Scarry Project is inappropriate for the neighborhood.. As noted above, most of the buildings in the surrounding neighborhood are - 1 ;3s l Architectural Review Commission t`_..ATTACHMENT 9 N1ay 16, 2001 Page Two single-story, residential-type structures. A 35-foot commercial structure situated on the very front of the subject parcel would overwhelm the neighborhood, destroying the privacy of adjacent residents and adversely impacting the views and sunlight exposure of nearby parcels. As presently designed, the Scarry Project is antithetical to the height, scale, mass, and general character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Impact on Subsequent Development. Granting the Scarry Project a height variance to 35 feet will have profound repercussions throughout the subject neighborhood. As previously noted, the Atiya property is zoned R-4, which permits a height of 35 feet. Atiya intends to build residential condominium units at 652 Morro Street, at some point in the not too distant future. Granting the Scarry height variance request will necessitate constructing such units at the full 35-foot height allowable in R-4; in order to partially offset the exceptional impact of a 35-foot office building on the privacy of the condominium residents, and to attempt to recover some of the Bishop's Peak view that would be lost by virtue of the Scarry variance. Such a configuration will substantially change the neighborhood environment and engender an intense buildup of 35-foot structures, in domino fashion, throughout the surrounding area. Thus, there will be not one, but many 35-foot buildings across the street from each other along Walnut Street and, eventually, throughout the entire neighborhood. 3. Negative Effect on Highway 101 Frontal Properties. The appearance of San Luis Obispo when viewed from Highway 101 is a significant component of the desirability and value of local properties. The height proposed for the Scarry Project would profoundly and negatively impact the character of the City's appearance from the freeway. A useful frame of reference is the structure located at 860 Walnut Street, presently occupied by Attorney Process Service. The entire roof of that building is plainly visible from the freeway. By this application, Mr. Scarry proposes to build a significantly taller structure on a parcel that is substantially uphill from 860 Walnut. An imposing - even garish - presence from the Highway 101 perspective will inevitably result. Moreover, such an oversized project would also be a precedent for additional height exceptions on the west side of Walnut, dramatically changing the character of the visage that is presented to freeway viewers. 4. An III-Advised Accommodation of an III-Conceived Design. It should be noted that a 5,000 square foot commercial building would be considerably larger than any other structure in the subject neighborhood. A driveway width of 16 feet is barely adequate to handle the traffic this project will attract, especially if the tenancy of the building evolves into exclusively medical or dental practices, for which additional parking and traffic capacity is required. If parking and compatibility with existing and potential residential uses are of concern, as indeed they must be in this locale, a down-sizing of the project should be mandated, not a further burdening of the neighborhood with a ruinous height allowance. -J! ,3.6 Architectural Review Commission !�T?ACl 9 Mav 16, 2001 Pale Three Conclusion Approval of the Scarry Project in its present design will effectively inaugurate a thematically incompatible building trend and precipitate a profound change for the worse in the immediate neighborhood, as well as the City's appearance from Highway 101. John H. Atiya and The AI-Haddad Sabah Trusts urge that the Application for Use Permit A 168-00 be denied. Very truly yours, R. Kevin Owens `ilia Resolution No (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 10 Appeal Upheld: 956 Walnut(168-00) Page I RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY DENYING APPROVAL OF A 35-FOOT TALL BUILDING HEIGHT AT 956 WANUT STREET (ARC 168-00) WHEREAS, on May 21 and June 4, 2001; the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) conducted public hearings and, based on the documentation and public testimony presented, granted final approval with conditions to the design of a new office building at 956 Walnut Street with a maximum height of 35 feet; and WHEREAS, Rob Strong, filed an appeal of the ARC's action on behalf of Mr. John Atiya,on June 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2001, and has considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the ARC hearings and action, and the,evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the ARC's recommendations, the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. A maximum building height of 25 feet is appropriate at 956 Walnut Street to ensure protection of privacy and views in nearby residential areas. 2, A maximum building height of 25 feet at 956 Walnut Street is supported by Land Use Element policy 4.13, which states that new downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them, and policy 2.2.4, which states that in designing development at the boundary of between residential and non-residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve a 35-foot maximum building height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum height allowed is hereby upheld, thereby denying the height exception. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Resolution No (2001 Series) Appeal Upheld: 956 Walnut(168-00) ATTACHMENT 10 Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey . Jo ensen Resolution No (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 1 Appeal Denied: 956 Walnut(168-00) Page I RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY UPHOLDING APPROVAL OF A 35-FOOT TALL BUILDING HEIGHT AT 956 WANUT STREET (ARC 168-00) WHEREAS, on May 21 and June 4, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) conducted public hearings and, based on the documentation and public testimony presented, granted final approval with conditions to the design of a new office building at 956 Walnut.Street with a maximum height of 35 feet; and WHEREAS, Rob Strong, filed an appeal of the ARC's action on behalf of Mr. John Atiya, on June 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2001, and has considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the ARC hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the ARC's recommendations, the appellantsstatement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project design is appropriate in the Office zone and will be compatible with surrounding development. 3. A maximum height of 35 feet is reasonably necessary to accommodate.,adequate on-site parking and allow the building to be located toward the-front of the lot, rather than having a parking lot up front with a building at the rear of the lot. The added height is also consistent with General Plan goals for infill development and compact urban form. 6. As proposed and conditioned, the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 7. As proposed and conditioned, the project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in the nearby residential areas. 8. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not diminish the quality of views toward the site from Highway 101. Resolution No (2001 Series) ATTACHMEW j Appeal Denied: 956 Walnut(168-00) Page 2 SECTION 2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve a 35-foot maximum building height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum height allowed is hereby denied, thereby upholding the action taken by the Architectural Review Commission on project number ARC 168-00 at 956 Walnut Street. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APP VED AS TO FORM: City Attorney effrey G. Jorgensen - - RECEIVED JUN 15 2001 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as specified in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (attached), the undersigned hereby appeals the decision of f Ar�ln,'1es�.rt.1 �•��� Cs�w�w�,ssto � rendered on Jv✓e- y 7-v o\ which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) 3 S� riuo x rw�uM fle,wh,J'e� w.+(n r"LAA tJ r"Al ina g The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: � wrf�� IyQi�e - -on . Name%Departfnent The appellant agrees to appear and/or send a representative to appear on his/her b half - ltP 4r o :. . '�}?rb�'' ow�el' o� FiS Z (Signaure Appe ant) �yA ���o U S� e�-, SLU�CI� C s�v�sv` .� 19 S G Q M lm l! s5 Q- Nve TIAS c�Oe�o�cj� Namet itl Mailing Address and 2ip Code g3ZZ 43831 (0 y 383(SS Home Phone Work.Phone Representative: R5ztc-) S via 1C_P 1 Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department.Head City Clerk.(original) (yoi) Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE -. . Sections: 1.20.010 Title. 1.20.020 Right to appeal. 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 1.20.040 Hearing-Notice. 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. 1.20.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Procedure"for the city.(Prior code'§1400) 1.20.020 Right to appeal. k Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person objecting to,the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license„permit or entitlement of pny nature, the determination or issuance of which is under-any of,the provisions.of this'code, or t6 any administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial,suspension or revocation of such license, permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal in writing to-the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement questions,unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under , any of the provisions of.tkis code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code,whether the administrative decision involves the approval,denial,suspension or revocation of a license, permit, entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044 § 1, 1985: prior code § 1401) 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. The appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date upon which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day, and this rule shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code§ 1402) 1.20.040 Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal in its proper form, the city clerk shall place the matter on the council agenda-Exceprin'cases of emergency,when the council may determine the matter ' immediately,or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk. The city clerk shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less-than five business days prior to such hearing, unless such notice is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252 § l,'1994: prior code § 1403) 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the action appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from time to time,and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in the matter.(Prior code§ 1404) STRONG PLANNING SERVICES ROB STRONG, A.I.C.P. June 8, 2001 RECEIVED JUN 11 2001 Mayor Settle and City Council Members SLO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal of ARC A168-00, 956 Walnut Street Dear Mayor and City Council: On June 4, 2001 the ARC, by a 4-3 vote, approved a 35-foot height exception for a proposed three-story office building at 956 Walnut Street, across the street from the property of my client, Mr. John Atiya. The northeast side of Walnut Street, including the Atiya property at 652 Morro Street, is zoned R-4, High Density Residential while the southwest side is zoned 0, Office. The latter adjoins freeway 101 and is visible from both north and southbound regional traffic. The Office zone allows a maximum height of 25 feet_, , unless an administrative use permit in compliance with Section 17.22.010,Table 9, Footnote 11 is approved. It is this use permit, and the required findings that we are appealing. In particular we believe that the proposed building unnecessarily exceeds the two-story character of the established neighborhood and significantly affects existing and potential privacy and enjoyment of the nearby residential areas. The deciding vote came after a comment that the proposed building was"surrounded by three story structures". The fact is that this will be the only three-story building within the three blocks on Walnut between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets. The General Plan Land Use Element policy LU4.16.4 states: "New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces and defer to a few tall, 'landmark'buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories. Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight and street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall." In policy 4.18, regarding commercial buildings outside the core, the paragraph concludes: "However, buildings should not exceed two stores(about 35 feet in height)." Relevant to existing and potential privacy and enjoyment of views from nearby residential areas we presented the following facts: The proposed three-story building adjoins a two-story 4 unit residential building to the northeast which the north side windows of the third story as well as the second story will overlook. This more than doubles the interface of office windows adjoining residential. X35-�3/SS 14500 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, ATASCADERO, CA 93422 • (805) 942-915 o FAx(805)438-3158 It is directly across thestreet from the Atiya property known as the Economy Motel which are currently single story residential units,that will.be redeveloped in the future. The area is zoned for high density residential. Future townhomes, condominiums or apartments.will probably be a mixture of two and three story buildings with patios, balconies,windows ad yards oriented toward the south and west where sunlight and attractive views are currently enjoyed. But all the front windows of the third story office will look down on the southwest facing patios, balconies and windows that would occur on the Atiya property, substantially interfering with residential privacy. Again this doubles the interface problems. To add insult to injury the 35-foot height.at the front.of the lot will block views of Bishop Peak from potential visibility from the future residential units. The only way to recapture part of the blocked view would be to propose maximum height on the upper portions of the Afiya property 'interfering with the views from the adjoining residential areas on Osos and Peach Streets. What makes this split decision most objectionable is that a three-story structure on the Sorry property is unnecessary as well as inconsistent with City policy, We demonstrated that the same ground level parking and a 5000 squarefoot office building on a - single elevated level could.be constructed on this 11000 sq.ft. parcel, without height exception. which would make the building more consistent with its one and two story.neighbors and more compatible with adjoining.residences to the north and est. The ARC seemed to ignore the concern of the residential owner because the proposed office building is an attractive architectural design. We believe that a similar design conforming to the 25 foot maximum height would be even more-attractive and more compatible with adjoining residential uses both existing and proposed. We ask the City Council to deny the Use Permit for height exception because the project is an unnecessary intrusion on views and privacy of the neighboring residential areas. incere Rob Strong, CP cc: fax to Kevin Owen John Atlya