Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2008, PH3 - APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BO ` J council M.'°�April j acEnaa REpont ,�N� #1.9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirectorD.b 60t.- Prepared 0�Prepared By: Tyler Corey,Associate Planner Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55-07). CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution, denying the appeals, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve the project at 399 Foothill Boulevard, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 2. Direct Staff to continue working with the project applicant and return to Council as part of the FY 2008-09 Financial Plan with City financial participation to improve the comer of Foothill Road/Tassajara. REPORT IN BRIEF This agenda report discusses two issues associated with a two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements proposed for the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive intersection. Attachments 1 though 3 show vicinity maps, project plans and Use Permit action letter for the project. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the project on March 3, 2008, based on findings and subject to conditions (Attachments 4 & 5). The ARC agreed with conclusions in the staff report (Attachment 6) that the project was attractively designed, met City goals and policies to provide housing and mixed uses, and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Two appeals of the ARC's approval of the project were filed. One appeal was filed by Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). He presented a written letter enumerating several project concerns at the ARC meeting; his appeal statement reiterated and added to the earlier list of concerns and were primarily related to the height and scale of the project creating neighborhood compatibility issues (Attachment 7). Two couples, both neighbors of the project, Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein also filed an appeal. Their appeal also questioned the project's compatibility with the neighborhood and brought up concerns with noise, privacy, parking and building architecture (Attachment 8). Secondly, as part of the project development, staff is proposing that the City take advantage of the unique timing of the private project and return to Council as part of the FY 2008-09 Financial Report - Council Ag . P .ends t—ARC 55 -07 April 15,2008 Page.2 Plan to fund a public/private improvement project to improve the intersection and existing utilities. DISCUSSION Background The applicant is proposing to develop an approximately 6,000 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive (Attachment 1). The project includes the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building with 1,532 square feet of commercial space and one residential unit on the ground level, and three one-bedroom units with lofts on the second level. The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-N- S). The "S" overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved the required use permit for the project, based on findings and subject to conditions (Attachment 3). The Hearing Officer found the mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan, with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district, and with surrounding residential uses. Architectural Review Commission Action On March 3, 2008, the ARC on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Palazzo voting no) granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 4). The Commission concluded that the mixed-use project was consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and goals to provide workforce housing. They liked the building detailing and quality of materials, and supported the site design to separate the residential and commercial uses on-site and to buffer the development from adjacent properties. Three neighbors spoke at the hearing voicing concerns with the intensity of the proposed development. Steve Hilstein noted that the proposed amount of parking was insufficient and was concerned with multiple days of trash pick-up at the site because of noise. John Magee wanted assurance that the drainage system would work efficiently and questioned the compatibility of the modern building architecture with angled roof forms with the surrounding neighborhood. Stephanie Hilstein pointed out that the loft spaces would be utilized as second bedrooms. Brett Cross, president of RQN, spoke to six points that he included in a letter that had been submitted to staff earlier in the day and distributed at the meeting to the ARC. He stressed that site development should be held to different property development standards than typically would be allowed in the C-N zone given the site's "S"- overlay zoning and its location being � -2 I Council Agenda Report-ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 3 predominately surrounded by R-1 development. He felt that the ARC's focus of review should be with the compatibility of the proposed development to the surrounding neighborhood. Staffs Response to Appeal Issues The following is a brief summary of the appellants' specific reasons for the appeal and staff's response on those issues. 1. The project is not architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale and character. Response: The surrounding neighborhood includes an eclectic mix of multi-story apartment buildings, two-story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single-family residences. As such, the neighborhood does not reflect any particular architectural design theme. The ARC is the City's designated design review body to evaluate whether a particular architectural style is compatible with the project site and surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with guiding principles included in the Community Design Guidelines, the ARC found the project architecturally compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: a. The building reflects materials and features associated with the surrounding residential neighborhood including variation in wall heights and window openings, modest glazing sizes, covered and uncovered wood porches and decks, smooth cement plaster siding, chimneys, generous eaves and projecting beam ends, sloping roof planes and variation in color. b. The structure is presented as a series of staggered blocks, which adds visual interest and minimizes large wall planes. c. Repetition in the massing, materials, openings, roof planes and angled parapet walls add harmony and continuity to the composition. d. The roof lines of the lofts are angled to reduce the building's apparent mass. e. Wall planes are further relieved by stucco reglets, fixed shade awnings and covered and uncovered porches and decks. 2. The project is inconsistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 3.5.6 & 3.13.1 (new General Plan policy numbering effective April 2007). (The RQN appeal letter includes old reference numbers to these policies,3.2.6 and 7.2.1,respectively). Response: The appellant appears to have taken HE Policy 3.5.6 out of context. HE Policy 3.5.6 implements Housing Goal 3, which is to conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of current occupants. This differs from the subject project in that it involves a vacant commercial building with no existing residential use. HE Policy 3.13.1 implements Housing Goal 7, which is to maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and improve neighborhood � -3 Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 4 appearance and function. Currently, the project site with its vacant building and unkempt landscaping appears abandoned and poorly maintained. In contrast, the project proposes to redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building, landscaping, decorative paving materials and outdoor seating areas. In addition, the applicant has agreed to dedicate a portion of the property at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street to improve the turning radius at this intersection. Based on these factors, and the ARC's determination of architectural compatibility, the proposed project would enhance the quality, function and appearance of the neighborhood. 3. The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10. The proposed development would create a dwelling and site plan that is clearly different than the surrounding R-1 development. Response: LU Policy 2.2.10 addresses compatibility of new housing in existing neighborhoods. The staff and ARC evaluation of the architectural compatibility of the proposed development appears above. In addition, the base zone for the site is Neighborhood Commercial. The intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district is "... intended to provide for retail sales and personal services primarily for the convenience of surrounding residential areas, in small-scale, pedestrian-oriented developments." Mixed use projects (combined commercial and residential uses) are allowed by right in the C-N zone. It is expected that the design of the new development will reflect, to some degree, its different use. The property development standards for this zone allow for greater height, coverage and wider range of uses as compared to the R-1 district. Because of the different property development standards, the "S" overlay zone was applied to the site to insure compatibility. The proposed project complies with all property development standards established for the C-N zone. 4. The parking requirements are inadequate for the proposed uses. Loft areas in units 2, 3 and 4 were not included in the parking calculations. Response: The loft areas were considered in the parking calculations, but not subject to a parking requirement. For residential uses, the number of required parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit. The Zoning Regulations separately define bedrooms and lofts. A loft,which is open on at least one side, does not contain a wardrobe or closet and is not designated for sleeping is not considered a bedroom for parking or density purposes. The proposed project includes the development of 10 vehicle parking spaces with access from South Tassajara Street. On February, 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved a 10% shared parking reduction for the mixed-use project that reduced the number of required vehicle spaces from 11 to 10,based on findings (Attachment 3). 5. The 10-foot setback along Foothill Blvd. is inadequate to ensure that the scenic view corridor is maintained along Foothill Blvd. 3 -� l Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 5 Response: The Circulation Element shows Foothill Blvd. as a road of moderate scenic value. The scenic resources of concern along Foothill Blvd. for this project are views of the Santa Lucia foothills and mountains to the east. Circulation Element Policies 15.0.1 & 15.0.3 require development projects along scenic roadways to preserve views of important scenic resources. As indicated in the existing condition photo (enclosed), there are existing structures and mature trees that already block the viewshed to the east (Attachment 9). With site development, the photo-simulation shows that the proposed building would not adversely impact views of the scenic resource. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City's scenic roadway policies. 6. The project does not include sufficient area for trash containment for both the commercial and residential uses. Response: Two separate trash enclosure areas are conveniently located for residential and commercial uses. The project's trash containment areas have been reviewed and approved by both San Luis Garbage and the Utilities Department and are adequate to serve project. 7. The upper level decks and lofts will create privacy, overlook, and noise issues with neighboring properties. Response: To minimize privacy, overlook, and noise impacts on adjacent residential properties to the south and west, the project includes the following design features: 1) the commercial component of the project is situated toward the corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive; 2) residential uses will abut residential uses; 3) the project includes low-wattage light fixtures with appropriate shielding; 4) the project includes privacy fencing and extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the site that will partially screen the building and increase privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project; 5) The primary decks and patios for units 2, 3 & 4 are oriented toward Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive, away from neighboring residential uses; and 6) The lofts are situated toward the center of the building away from property lines, are oriented toward South Tassajara Drive and are equipped with screen walls on the south, north and east sides of the patios to increase privacy and sound attenuation for occupants and neighbors. 8. Most of the neighbors were not notified about the Administrative Hearing on February 15,2008. Response: The City's notification requirements for Administrative Use Permit hearings include a legal ad in The Tribune, posting at the site and postcards mailed to abutting property owners and occupants. Notification for the project's Administrative Use Permit hearing was conducted in accordance with this procedure. Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 6 9. The project will interfere with solar access of the adjacent property to the west. Response: The applicant has prepared a solar shading plan for the project (Attachment 10). Based on site orientation (north/south), comer lot location and building placement, solar shading from the project would occur on the project site and adjacent streets, not the property to the west. Foothill/Tassajara Corner Improvements The project will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way on the corner of Foothill/Tassajara to allow modifications to the intersection to improve the handicap access and comer radius for turning vehicles. Even though many intersections in the vicinity have been improved the City has not previously improved this corner due to a variety of issues including lack of right of way, significant aboveground utilities, storm drain location and signal equipment. Figures I and 2 show the utility conflicts and corner turning radius issues at the existing intersection. The small corner radius has caused recent problems for the SLO Transit bus schedule. IM h`. Figure 1 —Foothill/Tassa'ara Utility Conflicts As part of the new evening service evaluation process, staff identified operational and safety issues associated with Route 4 and 6a making right turns from Foothill onto Tassajara Drive. —& s � n Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 7 These routes were experiencing delays during peak times due to high boardings along the routes that were exacerbated by sporadic delays at the intersection when attempting to make right turns from Foothill to Tassajara. As staff analyzed this issue and looked at alternatives, an apparent fix was rerouting the buses along Ramona Street one block west at La Entrada which has a much larger turn radius and has already been improved by the City. This option was considered because bus routes were already on Ramona east of this section and also on other residential collector roads in the vicinity. FOOT'HILL d U) 'w 4 ' l • � Figure 2—>roothMITassa'ara)Bus Turn Issues Staff assumed a rerouting of the transit routes would be non-controversial based upon these operations and approved new routing via a right turn from Foothill onto La Entrada Ave and a left turn onto Ramona Drive. Transit schedules were revised to include this change however no additional bus stops were installed along Ramona in this new block section. The new routing was implemented on September 5`h, 2007 and soon resulted in complaints from residents along this stretch of roadway. The complaints primarily express concerns regarding vehicle noise, safety, air quality, and the appropriateness of having fixed route transit in a residential area. The Transit manager responded to these initial comments, attempted to answer the concerns and also rode on the affected routes a number of times to see if the complaints of speeding by First Transit drivers was valid. Additional speed observations were conducted by the Transportation staff that did not result in observations that the buses were speeding in this vicinity. .3- 7 Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 8 Members of the public were present at the November Vh and January 9ffi, 2008 MTC meeting and their comments are part of the meeting minutes. Staff has continued to investigate the resident's concerns and review the issues associated with this route change for further modification as necessary. Comparisons of street width, time of day service, parking and safety have been reviewed by staff with a conclusion that there is no quantitative reason for immediate relocation of the route. Although there are certainly neighborhood issues associated with the routing, the bus service is similar to other neighborhoods and streets that are currently served by SLO Transit. However, the timing of this project gives us a unique opportunity to acquire the additional right of way that will allow for improvements to take place. Due to the size and scope of the project the City does not have the nexus to pass on the entire burden of these improvements to the private project. The applicant has been amenable to working with the City to help develop a public/private project and include the intersection improvements as part of their construction efforts. Staff has done a rough cost estimate of the work at the intersection in the amount of $100,000 or more that will depend highly on the cost of moving, or undergrounding the PG&E utility pole which include other utility providers such as Charter and AT&T. In the interim in bringing the improvement project forward, staff has implemented some transit route changes to address some neighborhood concerns. Because the right turn problem is primarily a "peak time" service issue, staff believes that a partial solution to the route issues would be to return Routes 4 and 6A to Tassajara after 5:00 PM. This changemill reduce the total number of daily trips along Ramona and remove some vehicle noise from the street during evening times and because side street traffic volumes are lower, the likelihood of conflicts is reduced at the Foothill/Tassajara intersection. 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. Staff is recommending that a CII' request be submitted for Council consideration as part of the FY 2008-09 Financial Plan to participate in improving the intersection and take advantage of the timing of the private project construction. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a Resolution, upholding the appeals, and denying the project, based on findings as specified by the Council. Council Agenda Report—ARC 55-07 April 15,2008 Page 9 2. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. 3. The Council may decide not to improve the intersection at this time. If Council chooses this option, at a minimum the City should accept right of way dedication from the applicant to reduce future improvement costs. If the City decides not to participate in improvements at this time, construction costs for a "City only" project will likely be higher in the future. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 4. ARC follow-up letter dated March 5, 2008 5. Minutes from the March 3, 2008 ARC meeting 6. Staff report from the March 3, 2008 ARC meeting 7. Appeal from Brett Cross, President of RQN, received March 10, 2008 8. Appeal from Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein received March 12, 2008 9. Viewshed analysis 10. Solar shading analysis 11. Draft Resolution denying the appeal, and. upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve the project 12. Alternative Draft Resolution upholding the appeal and denying the proposed project Enclosed: Color viewshed analysis Full-size project plans G:\tcorey\CC\ARC.55-07 Appeal(399 Foothill Bivd\ARC 55-07 rpt(appeal).doc f: �IIIIIIGIi :i ��i ��'!�� File No. 55=07 �I�NII :� IIINi i -- PUP "aePw 4 tachment 2 [a as Ills 1 I ♦♦ -_. ... ._ p444[t P4Pp4¢t ptPp PPpt 4 Hill p 1 -91 gap. -Ia¢1a9s £13LAp1i9 e -_^T-g= 'A^8 m Ila fo• if 4 him,!Lill 1w, ' qq1lv ' !l1sIJ;IIl IHiiI153112jil Al $4i � f1I j ib J Pa y 4¢..4} 4c P4 tpP iepasl} '! X. ..0 I5pp^aE ¢ P ggg • 1£ QjQCR10- itgw ; aCF -pRiA3 Jjgplfill 111 JIM 110111111111 I1111¢11 = Al2 I �'1 ZE rf. t. ff .•6'a - S U I � y - LL k 0 a ! 0 al 111 6 • � =� • � � � Attachment 2 190NI'Tina�a�Q ?SMOM VIII r 1. • Y.O Y TYp/}wJ =j •J - � • a..1..4..S A.M ' 9 J 1 Lti ! P f . - y I �1 � i � d >.a b.la• o9r • 1 T 1 Y • O 1 e ' 0 � I .q I I I ! I • � j f} I , } b - i r w IJ i ••e a�,raA e i f 3 3 3 's 1 a 3"s1jsss2__3s � 31 m nib � � s 1 � jj �{ pr� o ::p � I •� tf S b y --$5$ b y S"5 3yJ i ii' al C h d Y-'�•. � IL iEt aid; 3daIj gr�rodr � 1f SJij� i . d iee aP y 3 FBF• q { � Q 7a5 E 1 3:nn< d f _ • === �� Attachment 2 vo' Fo j �raiovne w� r�aeaa aaa�a i �NOJb'L� erefessi � r �P�P { �# gig t � 9 (� x I(I 1 I fs � g 1 f sit laitft�I HIJ1i$ftf¢111€1,111M :y a d I If r•. W du 09 ti _ a� 0a g i f w 4 i l� YY� I r = -== Attachment 2 vo�o"�am-r— i gNMIlne P— �tt Oaa` i mNOJ'ddb�i e.iejes�el 71 1 � 1 O d V O Na ww (•rR+/�'shy Q _ K e ° Attachment 2 e g �M e.ie(ess .t G ,d �R i O Z I 1 Oo J � I I i i i=6 ^ L3 O R c � ' I-" a Ir - •vim-�- - © al: B � �< r ,1IwA ' U 1. \ I1 ili 2.'�Y3 fir: '3 :t'�Fj�?r1��N r�9• /�� .DIY t� y 1�"^�"' r,.:ai,,' fJ � .^i:`'Syss�,mr .,�n ■ttttt� \��� � 1� • moo. ,, � ,,; uta �'✓ 1 t� 1 EM e:: EE E Attachment 2 2 0 0 3 7 c 0 <¢ nz�33° yf �aF6 Ill �j�fill, ;�f ��:-•':... :, •_....--$� S i .. _ �£7 i �' i3s s "s 'sJ2 ass3sE .a...x ns�°al O � ,i• - 3.. ��' S JF£Y � ` 1 1 �S f i � -i I V • fid 00000®®o°® ; r r G� g 3 I i ge i d �t zip u 1 1 i I 1 I o 1 I ; 1 3ti o o :t ' 3F}� Fps E�3 Fif S %i! 1 1 1 Ep W • pp {{ y � W o�i r1-8 dY2� PSj Js°Ssiy 4 7 � � � �° Y • F>�'�P 3a yx9 s��:?:�s` i>�lli 71.5r�(L fill xi f g r • 3 f. 9 �fp"s4f°•J.s s 343�git'353' 't�0 [lIJr .••:•• 1 o i 8I yill r al;��.��fE��r�a3�'� 1 � � >3��9-�����:� �, €Pf�,�• d Utz 3 - -17 3 s , Attachment 2 ljol"i1 1 [ • y o. S 13� o SigTE - 1113 I�_U ♦ o d S�1 S 1 �° 3a /LAA 9 d L i 5 5 • 434 €! ^ t L1S a o°o Yiill S$�$'><Ax $3 d iE•• �#• ' F i^L � •Ally. $a��`q= Di 93 47 04 ii Ut ,i - �P7 § € b CTB[' C T T gS Ml i fl i 7t i r NO # s " 3-/8' C lOte' '0■OdSMO Slfll MVS1 � ��� /� o � `�1e YEu noo�sss; L ui . Z3dm GIAVO •aw ! �1 if m all .s $ted9 za 4 e Q i * $ gBi I d■ f � 6 ; ! � ;g % a a € Ila �a i a ■� � � �£8af'��j- k i $ii. $ E a •l� � Fj $? s�t5�s�`. #2 a s;sL9 ai f y did &_ L • __ �; ;: �;:�• ; i `� i¢�� aa� n 8 aa'$ �9� aE �38g�n� ° �a�E 41 lit4$EEa CE !! ° 1 a$8y HIM ggig �En ¢ g a ae . SaaaBE�iY <aie �€ E ef � & ai P yp5! .. N• J/ d, n d . __ � _.d _ R . t2 F 3c'�58. if it 1, if aaa . � sit fig ZLLI lit g � "" ' • Q 0 E3 6.J.asLu _ 71 • W w � a s ® t V• § gi E� g m ay955 N all EC% $ {—{jp�eas '� t� �iryg yeaq Cit SEE � e ' y II —f f � $dfi d i BEi cRRy$e6 9s g Bi .� $ y g a] B g d alit 111 MIl l; ¢ EC E Eas � EiBmsaay $ ifil 11; E � _¢ Ypi a aq�gg9 $YCE ,0 bOdS180 Slfl, IVES §g Attachment 2 G t 4/1-18-nIHIOOd 66£ , 11dd u; 2aldO-1 4!/1 a *,dW a U JU S jigf $ lax. . i e e ! I E I Fvi ,a. , y ---------- n i J{I I I @e •.TAO !rh. i '1 i F � � Y4 " � � MR OR bbl � y • ,M It wvc, /J iodSiso.SII I 1 N s Y {1 € A [-'�• '^ 8 I _ GAIBIIIHloo366£ If�t § J:,e'✓<�dxaA'�/�1 I1116 '� Z3dol alAva 2IW f I IH e '! ait t1i119 12 I I I N. _ r _ _ � W C t o J 3munuuood eg I N ss, / III f ` t I i r t D 4 i* ( e� / •u I / �u 4 IILLff � �I / lig i �" 4 �!• Ill I ttd tow, � `0ds1e0 Slfl, ►� W13 1. §� - Attachment 2 g f „IH100�66£ '' v -g W IIa, z3d01 alma •aw Jill a! �MV10be dNVid j " pal z � p ,sa o YtlJ rY Y. Vi^ c 2 ni: G + . _ ,t 13f�la�TTMlOOi er 'i a b a m I � E f Rd rr O' f 8 P. s �? 4# •s- { 7 i Rend x^ �,•I s a 'I - jai ;�R4 �+ I Sf E �J :M OR 805 e 0 I WV� O`OdSISO sim NVS Attachment ig {y �, . $ w CIAlBIIIHlOOd 66£ IIB @@ Z3dOl ciAva ZIWLd Z m68 ` gm mR Ygf J' BFull - potrill B ':`.. € : o B 1BB - Bf ifibuB66Rent 49 o sd, F 3AILIOMM100A FaeWRI RIM. ^�. Sol = r g ' L y -r, ar ,� 3L � EI: I ' It a r I la .i � I -, � � !t i or C ..➢.YtB =x• p 6C5 Y g .V.n..a.r. - /➢ 4 g6]B OR 906 I +� UI L01 � �� 'OdS190 sim NdS j'� 419IIIHJ-00d 66£ j Attachment 2 z3d01 agnea W4 i I I 111M. dgE z gill $ a� I fit $ gJill 4 #a � c d41 $ gd$6d W_: 333 (irp Y S�C3 � E • d 1 _ 3n eia nit Looj Ino p4l BI 4. �`\ m. IT I I .i \ I � c� ___ �I ISN •..jn : Cra a� �• 1 �' C��ff .` r � ..vn•�.... a .. �n... I i C Y d I 3� y !t w _ ) 'Od8190 Elft, S �'I $§ Attachment 2 fill 4A18 7111-1.1-00-:17111-1.1-00-:166£ d '`` ' w !� �, Z3dOl OV1d4 21W sF WJO-TdYd3NdNV7d - I Y I { yyfg�t2T, , t Lo® eetteoo eoao t 91! if _ ,t Iyya��''•t' el f }t 1 } ei rI � d d ' � ryt�i'I'tfI••flgiSgt _ _ ryryll,, p{a;� la A �tlepyl���1 �'1 186 L4. `t �. +d ! i 9a tg„` m l i -1�1i z t y. 4 t e S EE E yg9 ¢¢ 1 p ` :ij f 1't' 1. 'I I 111 17�a J � t1 + l.r i1 a� r'1 lj a � �j�,�E i�l�#�� 1j!) • �It � �fjl i` �7e� �}�'�ijj9 �� 1?l ;Y FIJI Illitt[lll��ill�7 ! m �tfe�l�; �lljl!l:li � fel$ I Y S J W f ^ yC J 2 i I gEiA Y s � g U 7 1•0t �tD 'OdSIBO Slfi, Nvs ,} §t IN �A,e 1111-1.1-00=1661; , �,,( g attachment 2 W ;# Z3d01 OIAVO .2iW woda3Wd.:WdNVW I tiiN! leiiio [ d.5 is :• 1 ij( 0 gs 2 Milli Nil g F1 iJ}: Aft a 3" � �i`p ti•_y?,�.ia,�eeE 1 v� 'lifftt a a,td t aas '.." `6 0 �i. ell• ielelf�y�'t,� 6 ��'#t��f ��<;.,r:2= ��' � , 1 a � . lA eeo oome Mill (� F j1,fe1 ��� � �g1 ' a 11$ 11H y�li 19 L•• �1,11 ! wia HE it Fill „F,Y• If`I71 }�� 1 r'• Y$a0 5bit a , a 1t V 9,`t �gF� ! [+ `'��.�s t?tt° SiC•F i`i9; 1 �' °� ��i[' !1 Itl 1 ! !Had 22 + ad .r S( 0 A AM it,sit =WIN g� ', � it i e ees e'a 2. Ill 1'Ei j7d a hilt} {t �o pitt Sgat a C3&! # !° ,F Fi } a �3 S7� f�'9 E !� i & Prn 6 { ' 3m S5 { [ [ F I% 'a WW sit 1 111 L• i;d i 155 , 55 ,1;Id ' t 1% i • 't {�s, g iIl;i r't;; ij R." i9 a: ( �€ }# e't{f lj#{e�,, il e �t B a jl �a1T b � 2 '� z ��1#�# �' � � �� �1 !fit $10 , , S jt; � � aA • Y Y ! }!ly u i 1,01? ) 'OdSlBa Slfl,NvS p,,,� { � Attachment 2 , f aAlB ITH100�66€ I`s{ w 1' Ol GIAVa 'Nn t gif Z3d � all 7!R GiWa%1NY1d tt !p { �i d as; °E N ~tL lit iii: i= j fir 1 allIf • _ � � t3libf y i } j ' NTH "i j 1 11" 11 6 f J E _�t t � 0 3 s e 6 S rr et }� y = g u! _ +� ! ;,�I elf �'f,}$t�iE4{ 9r•�9' � {-{`` � $ � ! I •! f 6 �i I'SJul YJ _21 31 •� , • ���rj C) if �il�+�Irf slay F Ii� fFfl� e" I e� lit At I{ gill s ! l{ t fi� E LiiAE •� 1 i !l iE i � + 6v t { { C b WN f H lL � 1,ot GATS llI/3 'odsls0 Slfl, Nds „t� � Attachment 2 Q � Y H1003 66£ }e pp Z3dOl OIAW MYY [ fit tti[ 11 11 1 f e [ li18eeees{{ ! , e F pill! i oa !! luF! 21, 3 3 1a i f ' if it , P i IN 1 el JI I u i w as m (Qi —_R cWi , I E E zlil Q , m t l!1j; i{[ Vil s x [ 1 [ ii li�il+'ila e ` i♦go � � � � t I F ;l�;�Igj; a 'F tit !E t ho 0 f, ttRICLt �� �Ipd Aftachment 2 OWe i lQ I Y �_ i nuc• / 1 ya `t� h I } SOC a0 BL2 uw et`pp ' i i _ I .le..ro Iw•a $F = 4k T I L.ra{ l;oryy n.ee' ] IMABsa• hW oe.n A fY 1 0.00 31 lRai 1\ g 1 � i ' .aa=a g• � $ � �/ / / / r � I I •� � : . � / /a / I 1 u / /�•/ / amR I ii i // /'ate 9yRL. .Kola � •33b F g{ y"� n9cx CCE iaYY" O ��•� TI• v+.T:u—ae iCeyT M1N� O i da` 6 yl I ai f I 1 I d t V L'e I I _ oeesl. �•vd�Y.l � 8 � •a {.•x,1.1, "a : - . , . . I a 4 41a I(['R• � n Q Q • � C6 f5,py Y[6 w�]SCL "Iq N Mluoq •6C OS L a.pl llmynb � � _. ._ _._.... ._....._ ------------- I r 1 • Cf g _ __ .. I p {IOR�eS�.. �rltQ. ! g w•0' � pnl. aE I n n <9K[• �J s I 'VeIB le!V]ooA 5 F �►►i���el�llllll8111111 � I � 1 IIIIIIIIIIIII °11I 1111CI � of ��- � �. San , Attachment 3 Community Development Department • 919 Palm St CUL; �airLaw vuispu, L;A a64u1=3216 February 20, 2008 David Lopez 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 55-07: 399 Foothill Blvd. Dear Mr. Lopez: On Friday, February 15, 2008, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit to allow a mixed-use project and 10% shared parking reduction in the C-N-S zone, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The "S" (special considerations overlay zoning) was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The proposed project conforms to the site's C-N-S zoning and the General Plan for the following reasons: a. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. b. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. c. The project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district which is "...intended to provide for retail sales and personal services primarily for the convenience of surrounding residential areas, in small-scale, pedestrian-oriented developments." d. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 2 ?Q Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. �J • e r A 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 2 Attachment 3 �" 2. The shared parking reduction will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the proposed development combines commercial and residential uses within a single building and there will be varying hours of maximum parking demand from the foreseeable uses at the site allowing for adequate parking to be provided. 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." 4. The project satisfies the requirement for a 10% shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B, because there will be at least two or more uses sharing common parking areas. 5. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Restaurant uses on the project site shall be required to include interior spaces for the storage of food scraps and other waste and shall contract for daily garbage service to the approval of the Community Development Director. Refuse storage areas shall be kept clean and odor free. If trash must be relocated from the interior space of a restaurant to the exterior trash enclosure on-site, it shall be done as close as possible to the trash pick-up time. To address noise issues, plans for tenant improvements shall be evaluated to keep kitchen areas away from the exterior doors and windows of the residential units. 3. Hours of operation for all commercial uses, including restaurants, on the project site are limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. 4. Prepare and provide an easement document dedicating a 25-foot radius at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street to accommodate the relocation of the traffic signal and traffic signal control box by the City. The curb ramp shall be replaced in compliance with current City and ADA standards. A minimum 4' landing shall be provided at the top of the ramp. 5. Provide public pedestrian easements required for the ADA sidewalk extension at the driveway approach and the curb ramp upgrade. 3-31 L L A 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) �_ I AttachmentPage 3 3 6. Omit the upstream manhole proposed for the relocated public storm drain. The City will accept only one manhole. 7. Omit the private PVC drain connection to the relocated public storm drain. The catch basin located in the parking lot is acceptable and will require the proposed fossil filter insert. The concentrated drainage on the westerly side of the property shall be directed to the Foothill gutter by means of a City Engineering Standard sidewalk underdrain. See City Engineering Standards #3415 and #3420 for reference. If you have any questions, please call Tyler Corey at (805) 781-7169. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Thom Brajkovich 1009 Morro Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Lopez, David A. & Andrea E. 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3-30- Attachment 4 II I�I II III � City OSAn kiiS OBispo Community Development Department - 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 March 5, 2008 David Lopez 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 55-07: 399 Foothill Boulevard Review of a mixed-use project in the C-N-S zone, including 1,532 s.f. of commercial space and 4 residential units. Mr. Lopez: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 3, 2008, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 3 -33 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. - � P ARC 55-07 �. Attachment 4 Page 2 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over 1/2" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. The proposed cement plaster siding material on the building shall have a smooth hand trawled finish. 4. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-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. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building: With the 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 or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 6. As shown on Sheet A-1 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community 3-3y ARC 55-07 Attachment 4 Page 3 Development Department. 7. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC. if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 8. The building plan submittal shall provide a second set of waste-wheelers for trash and recycling for the residential units to share within their dedicated enclosure. Informational Note: All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation. 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 Tyler Corey at 781-7169. Sincerely, is U Pamela Ricci, Al Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Thom Brajkovich 1009 Morro Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i Attachment 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 3, 2008 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jason Kambitsis, Allen Root, Greg Wilhelm, Anthony Palazzo, and Steven Hopkins. Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Recording Secretary Michelle Lakey ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public.. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 399 Foothill Blvd. ARC 55-07; Review of a mixed'-use project in the C-N-S zone, including 1,532 s.f. of commercial space of 4 residential units; David Lopez, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Senior Planner Pam Ricci, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. She explained that the proposed project would involve demolition of an existing commercial building, associated site improvements, and the construction of about 1,500 square feet of commercial space and four one-bedroom residential units. She also noted that the proposed project would include 10 parking spaces, that there are separate residential entrances from the commercial entrances, and that the roof line is broken up by the gaps between the loft spaces of the units. She briefly summarized some of the use restrictions covered under the approved administrative use permit and applicable property development standards for the C-N zone. She also addressed each of the six concerns regarding the project brought out in a letter submitted by Brett Cross on behalf of Residents for Quality neighborhoods (RQN). Thom Brajkovich, project architect and representative of the applicant, discussed how potential types of businesses that would fill the commercial space(s), i.e. barber shops, coffee shops, would help the neighborhood. He explained that although the project was eligible for up to a 30 percent parking reduction, they only requested a 10 percent parking reduction, which the Hearing Officer approved as part of the required use permit. He pointed out that the upper level decks were designed to prevent overlook 334e _Attachment 5 ARC Minutes March 3, 2008 Page 2 issues. He noted that the applicant was working with the City on the dedication of portion of the comer near the street intersection to accommodate a twenty-five foot radius to allow for easier maneuvering for buses and other large vehicles in adjacent travel lanes. Dave Lopez, applicant; explained the complexities in the design to respond to site constraints and to protect neighbors. He noted that the ground floor apartment would be ADA accessible. He pointed out that the angles of the roof are for energy efficiency and proper shading, that the site plan allows pedestrians to walk through the comer of the property, and that there is a six-foot high fence proposed that would block the street view to the laundry area on the property. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Hilstein, 19 S. Tassajara, SLO, expressed concerns that construction of the proposed development would result in the site being overbuilt and that proposed parking was insufficient. He was opposed to the bus route being rerouted through the neighborhood and proposed tree removals along the south property line. John Magee, 23 S. Tassajara, SLO, mentioned that the number of parking spaces allocated for the project was not realistic. He felt that having a restaurant in one of the commercial units would not be a good idea and wanted to see a limit on the size of the commercial units to prevent an excessively large business from being established. He emphasized that the drainage system should not cause flooding to the other properties in the neighborhood. He did not feel that the proposed building design would be compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. He was opposed to any businesses being established at the site that would cause a lot of noise at night. Brett Cross, RQN president, expressed concern that the proposed project did not fit well in the predominately R-1 neighborhood and that the parking is inadequate. He felt that the viewshed corridor is not protected with only a 10-foot street yard setback. He acknowledged that the project is well designed, but is not consistent with the S-overlay zoning that applies to the property regarding neighborhood compatibility. Stephanie Hilstain, 19 S Tassajara, SLO, expressed concern that the proposed project is too large for the lot and pointed out that the loft spaces would be utilized as second bedrooms. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission concluded that the mixed-use project was consistent with the City's General Plan and Community Design Guidelines. They liked the building detailing and quality of materials, and supported the site design to separate the residential and commercial uses on-site and to buffer the development from adjacent properties. Commr. Wilhelm. supported the mixed-use project as being consistent with the General Plan, C-N zoning, and City goals to create more work-force housing. He felt that the .3-37 ARC Minutes Attachment 5 March 3, 2008 Page 3 parking reduction granted was minimal and that the attractively designed project was far superior to past uses on the site. Commr. Root supported the project and noted that there were sometimes parallels between increased enrollment at Cal Poly and impacts to neighborhoods in the City. Commr. Howard felt that the project was well-designed and would be a positive aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. Commr. Kambitsis supported the project and the affordability of the housing being proposed. Commr. Hopkins noted that many of the issues brought up by the neighbors at the meeting are experienced in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Chairperson Boudreau felt that the placement and roof forms of the lofts kept the building from looking like it had three stories. He noted that the project would be a success if the same type of quality and attention to detail goes into the execution of construction as it has gone into the design. Commr. Palazzo had concerns with the design because of potential solar shading and overlook issues. He suggested that the railing could be raised higher on west-facing decks to further prevent overlook. On motion by Commr. Wilhelm, seconded by Commr. Howard. the ARC granted approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions as included in the staff report. AYES: Commrs. Wilhem, Howard, Root, Chair Boudreau, Hopkins, and Kambitsis NOES: Commr. Palazzo RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. Staff A. Agen ast- Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. 3. Commission: A. Minutes of February 19, 2008 The minutes of February 19, 2008 were approved as submitted. Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169)jt/ MEETING DATE: March 3, 2008 FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARC 55-07 PROJECT ADDRESS: 399 Foothill Blvd. SUBJECT: Review of a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,532 square feet of commercial floor area located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and South Tassajara Drive. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation/Project Description The applicant is proposing to develop a 3,023 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements on the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive. The property is zoned Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-N-S). The "S" overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The project includes the demolition of an existing building and construction of 1,532 square feet of commercial space and one residential unit in the ground level and three one-bedroom units with lofts in the second level. Other components include site grading, driveway access from South Tassajara Drive, tree removals, landscaping, installation of utilities and 10 vehicle parking spaces. The applicant is requesting final approval by the ARC of project plans. Data Summary Address: 399 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: David Lopez Representative: Paragon Designs Zoning: C-N-S (Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Environmental Status: The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3-3� 0 Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 2 Site Description The relatively flat, rectangular shaped site consists of approximately 10,220 square feet located on the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street. The site is developed with a 2,125 square-foot building, vehicle parking with access from South Tassajara Street and various other site improvements. The existing building and site improvements would be demolished to accommodate proposed development. There is an existing 10-foot wide drainage easement that bisects the rear portion of the property. The surrounding area is residential in character and developed with an eclectic mix of multi- story apartment buildings, 2-story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single- family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Administrative Hearing Officer Action On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved an Administrative Use Permit for the project to allow the construction of a 3,023 square-foot commercial and residential building on a sensitive site in the C-N-S zone and 10% shared parking reduction, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 3). The Hearing Officer found the mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan, with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district and with surrounding residential uses. One person spoke on the item, Naoma Wright, during the public comment period citing concerns with commercial uses at the site, architectural compatibility with the neighborhood, solar shading and available on-site parking. EVALUATION The following discussion covers the project's consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines. As conditioned, staff finds the project design a good utilization of the property, which is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with City standards. General Plan and Zoning Regulations A. General Plan The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" in the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan polices: LUE 2.2.7 Housing & Businesses — "Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged." LUE 3.8 Mixed Uses—"Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged." HE Goal 2 Affordability — "Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the 3-�1d Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 3 City's Quantified Objectives." HE Policy 3.3.4 Affordability — "Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population..." HE Policy 3.9.3 Housing Variety and Tenure — "Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently." HE Goal 6 Housing Production — "Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs." B. Zoning Regulations The City regulates mixed-use projects via Chapter 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations. The ARC should use this chapter to evaluate the project. The site development and performance standards of importance for this evaluation are listed below and staff's analysis follows in italics. A. Design Considerations. A mixed use project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses. 2. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. 3. The design of the mixed use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts. 4. The design of a mixed use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 5. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 6. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Staff Analysis. The project has been designed to include ground level commercial along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages along with one accessible residential unit on the ground level and three residential units on the second level. Separate pedestrian walkways 3- y� ' Atachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 4 and access have been provided for the commercial and residential components of the project. The site design integrates the street pedestrian environment with the commercial component of the project by including a mixture of paving materials and raised landscape planters with seating walls along the project's street frontages. The residences have been oriented and designed to minimize potential noise, odor and glare impacts related to the on-site commercial uses. Access to the residences is provided along the westerly property line, on the opposite side of the building from the commercial tenant entries. The design of the building, especially the second level, has a distinct residential character with variation in wall heights and window openings, modest glazing sizes, covered and uncovered wood porches and decks, smooth cement plaster siding, chimneys, generous eaves and projecting beam ends, sloping roof planes and variation in color. In addition, the design of the building provides for extensive private outdoor use areas for the units on multiple floor levels in the form of patios, decks and covered porches along the east, west and south sides of the building. To minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties to the south and west, the applicant has incorporated the following design features into the project: ]) the commercial component of the project is situated toward the corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive; 2) the project includes low-wattage light fixtures with appropriate shielding; and 3) the project includes privacy fencing and extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the site that will partially screen the building and increase privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project. The surrounding neighborhood includes an eclectic mix of multi-story apartment buildings, 2- story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single-family residences. The proposed two-story mixed-use building with lofts can be found consistent with the existing neighborhood because it includes the following design features: a. The structure is presented as a series of staggered blocks, which adds visual interest and minimizes large wall planes. b. Repetition in the massing, materials, openings, roof planes and angled parapet walls add harmony and continuity to the composition. c. The roof lines of the lofts are angled to reduce the building's apparent mass. d. Wall planes are further relieved by stucco reglets, fixed shade awnings and covered and uncovered porches and decks. e. The building reflects materials and features associated with the surrounding residential neighborhood including variation in wall heights and window openings, modest glazing sizes, covered and uncovered wood porches and decks, smooth cement plaster siding, chimneys, generous eaves and projecting beam ends, sloping roofplanes and variation in color. B. Site layout and project design standards. Each proposed mixed use project shall comply with the property development standards of the applicable zoning district, and the following requirements. 1. Location of units. Residential units shall not occupy ground floor space within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from each building face adjacent to a street, or any ground floor space in the CD zoning district. 3-y�- t �� Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 5 2. Loading areas. Commercial loading areas shall be located as far as possible from residential units and shall be screened from view from the residential portion of the project to the extent feasible. 3. Refuse and recycling areas. Areas for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be located on the site in locations that are convenient for both the residential and non-residential uses. StaffAnalvsis. One residential unit is located on the ground floor and three are located on the second level of the building. The ground floor unit is located within 50 feet of Foothill Blvd. On February 20, 2008, the Director determined that this exception is of such a minor or incidental nature that the intent of the Zoning Regulations can be met without further use permit control based on the following reasons: 1) multifamily units are allowed within 10 feet of a street yard property line on the ground floor in the C-N zone with approval of an Administrative Use Permit; 2) 75% of the proposed residential units (3 of 4) comply by being located on the second level of the building; 3) The project site is surrounded by residences with similar building setbacks to the proposed ground floor unit; and 4) the ground floor unit will be ADA accessible. No commercial loading areas are proposed for the project. Two separate trash enclosure areas are conveniently located for residential and commercial uses. Trash enclosure locations are shown on Sheet A.1 of project plans. It should be noted that the trash enclosure for the commercial component of the project will be located outside of the 10 foot street yard setback area along Foothill Blvd. and will be partially screened from view by raised landscape planters and installed vegetation. The enclosure is proposed to be finished with the same steel sheet roofing material used on the building with a dark enamel paint color. C. Performance standards. 1. Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negatively impact the residential units. Staff Analysis, Project lighting consists of low wattage decorative goose neck fixtures with shielding for the commercial component of the project and a mix of decorative goose neck and down lighting with shielding for the residential component. The exterior lighting schedule is shown on Sheet T-1 of project plans and specific light fixture locations are shown on Sheets A-2 thru A-4. 2. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations. Staff Analysis: According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the building footprint is located within an area susceptible to 60-70 decibles (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise generated from Foothill Blvd. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of four residential units on the site could expose people to unacceptable noise levels, if not properly mitigated. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into the 3-y3 Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 6 project to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less,per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over %2" minimum thickness fiberboard("soundboard''). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20%of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. Hours of operation. A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require the Director's approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. Staff Analvsis: The Administrative Use Permit approved for the project includes a condition that requires the hours of operation for all commercial uses, including restaurants, on the project site to be limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. Community Design Guidelines The Community Design Guidelines does not contain any specific chapter that establishes design parameters for mixed-use projects. However, Chapter 2 (General Design Principles) contains general principles that should be considered in the design of all new development. In staff's view, the project design is a good utilization of the property and consistent with this Chapter based on the preceding staff analysis. Landscaping Extensive landscaping is proposed within raised and at-grade planter beds along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages and along the perimeter of the site. The schematic landscape plan contains a variety of plant materials of different forms and sizes to create an interesting presentation. Landscaping will consist of ground covers, perennials, vines, shrubs and a variety of trees. Three Eucalyptus trees are proposed to be removed along the southerly property line. The City Arborist has reviewed the request and supports the tree removals along with the proposed replacement tree plantings shown on Sheet L-1 of project plans. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be 3-17 Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 7 given to staff and the applicants. 3. The Commission may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This item was distributed to the Public Works and Utilities Departments and Building Division, and comments have been included as project conditions and code requirements where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project,based on findings and subject to conditions. Findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component(four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). .� -yam ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 8 Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfin or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over 11/z" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. The proposed cement plaster siding material on the building shall have a smooth hand trawled finish. 4. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-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. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the 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 or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 6. As shown on Sheet A-1 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 7. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal 3 -ylk -� Attachment 6 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 9 conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building.. 8. The building plan submittal shall provide a second set of waste-wheelers for trash and recycling for the residential units to share within their dedicated enclosure. Informational Note: All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. ATTACHMENTS Filing Fee: $100.00 Attachment 7 Paid Date Received r;4 f NIA RECEIVED ty 'REFER TO SECrM 4,. MAR 10 1008 San LUIS OBispO SLO CITY CLE APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION �kdeN-lCs �OrL Q)Al,"E j 116g� 646 s P, 13wL 126014 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code spa ���s oh�SPo GA �13�ob Phone Fax Ugkt C 055 IL 7 Mt—lflutR6 6>4 , e5h- 4414 dew C4 413'P'9 Representative's Name Mailin Address and Zip Code Cha;rz® 8ds -Z 3110-/S 7a Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the. ��q��Ct1iP.A�� R+ruljEGt7 �o�irl%SS/o� {Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The data the decision being appealed was rendered:/1�9:=e6 -3, Z01949 3. The application or project was entitled: 46- PUK APP L FF 31 "NE 4. 1 discussed the matter Wth the following City staff member: PA.^ ? ce'i on 2;/o //tO 9 (Staff Members Narne and Departrrmt) (Date) S.. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and WhX you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what fence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach addfionai pages,Y necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 ofp/ v/ �/I Attachment 7 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4, APPEL.LANr'S RESPONSIDIUTY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participationin local government.and-: encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However,due to.real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification; all appeals pertaining to a "planning application or project are subject,t__a filigg fee af:•5400.,wtrlch Too"brnpeny�lYe -appeatform:. Your right to exercise an appeal comes withcertain responsibilities. lf.you-.file:an. mustappeal, pieese understand that it S be heard within 45 days.from filing this form: You.fluilt:,tie notified in writing of the exact date your appeal.will be heard before the Council: You.oryour representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to rriakeyour', case. Yourtestimony'is limited to 10 minutes. A.continuance may be granted under certairf-'and unusual circumstances~ if you feel-you need to request a continuance,-you must submit your repuest,in writing to the..''4 Elerk Please be ce advised.that if your requestfor continuance,is raoaived after,ii appeal is notiCBd fott a ptltifip-.thy' Council pray not be able to grent.there que�-for continuance.:Sub;n4ng a request for cot dnganoe does notguarantee that it MW be granted:that action it at the discretion of tlte-City Council. . ,+ I hereby agree to appear and/or send,&raepresent#Ive to appear on my beha/'Whan r said appeal Is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council, (Signature of Appellant) ( ate) E)qceptior�fo;ft9 few ,'IjApp�ale of Tra9 Committee dec�ai@ins. 2�Ttie a6oYe�r►arrted a laM lies atrosdy peld ..the City$106 ti6appeal this same maker taa Myc ticlal:o�4`oun�IGadvl Cryy botgr This Item is hereby calendared for 'do S--' c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head — /Yjawz ale di&e Advisory Body Chairperson City clerk(ori anal) �7 Page 2 of 3 =3 ,�Sacc9 /J aur ds-�rti, Attachment 7 jib Residents for duality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 March 10,2008 RE: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission approval of application ARC 55-07, 399 Foothill Blvd. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods does hereby appeal the decision of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission regarding the approval of a mixed use project comprised of 1532 square feet of commercial floor area and four dwelling units being proposed for the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd and South Tassajara Drive,ARC 55- 07 for the following reasons: 1. The project is not architecturally consistent with the surrounding R-1 (single- family)neighborhood in character or in scale. The project's overall height and setbacks are inconsistent with the surrounding R-I (single family)neighborhood. The underlying zone is CN(commercial neighborhood)with an S designation. The S designation(Special Considerations)was placed on the property to ensure that any proposal would be consistent with the character and scale of the surrounding single-family residences and that any uses would be compatible with an R-1 neighborhood. 2. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element section 7.2.1-Character, Size, Density and Quality. Within established neighborhoods,new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. 3. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element section 3.2.6-Neighborhood Preservation. It significantly alters the character of the property making it different from the surrounding residences. 4. The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element policy 22.10-Compatible Development. ,�-sa Attachment 7 The proposed development would create a dwelling and site plan that is clearly different than the surrounding R-1 development. 5. The parking requirements are inadequate for the proposed uses.Loft areas in units 2,3,and 4 were not included in the parking calculations.The lack of available on- site parking will be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 6. The 10-foot setback along Foothill Blvd. is inadequate to ensure that the scenic view corridor is maintained along Foothill Blvd. Circulation Element policy 15.0.1 Views: The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from streets and roads.In particular,the route segments shown in Figure 6 and the Conservation and Open Space Element are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. 15.0.3. Development Along Scenic Routes Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. 7. The project does not include sufficient area for trash containment for both the commercial and residential uses. The lack of adequate trash containment will necessitate frequent collection which will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity due to traffic,noise,and air pollution. 8. The project will interfere with solar access of the adjacent property to the west 9. Upper level decks will create overlook issues with adjacent properties. Sincerely, aaf-4%n. Brett Cross, RQN Chair � Filing Fee: $100.11%47 I1t 8 Paid ✓ R N/A MAR 2008 RV city of san lues oBlspo . 1;. REFERTOSECnlON4 SLO CIN CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL it�Cr>�ON-ri�. APPMR.ELLANFOAq ON 37S l�or7�/Lt, Sc10 9 giie v Cr Q- .STff P e4,j/c?, !li"h! ji.a 14 rAkr q tT"q�..o Ji-O 9 e3 Yo 4— Nimge�� r e L�_ Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Tdle Phone Fax P.. SECTIONZ SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.?0q., ¢h, r$aAks o^L1 Municipal Code (copy attached),f hereby appeal the decision ofd# app; .: :;i;.`v n i<Yas.�i �n.e��l.TtscT'v.�At-. /c.�V/c=L� CAiyMr�✓i0rb (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3 /ha .mac N V `a 3. The application or project was entitled:. R Ra r-CF c.r— 4 ru s's- ^o? 7'9S /,a o tic.c:. 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: �A ti A- on ''/ /*J Rr1c.r✓ (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: No SECTION 3 REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 J Attachment 8 Reason for Appeal continued D '1 �`✓'t'b�> �.�. •6 l o o � .� '2. �M .+. t FJ �C:? .1 a� � *a Hd.y i .-�2 + y✓ .- N � = � SL�ar`s� fsp sur�OGu'a9iti4�Pi +rGai, cavrnte an . ; e �y�a(gj�r� (rhe)�s{a(j�f(�i�t3�rttt} s (f}�jtnileiag /rn�i�e � y/�r�s j/��crr+ t[a+t�c� C�ay1$�6�ey��ipe� pcfii w�'G �f iW}SdN `.`� i�T�C1�FI�� YFMCf� 1'{ wi y ryl i MA ptbnfr%► g pps ltgation e pry Zx' ¢ �-7 P ¢ Lw� ,. : r.3n r •� m'E :a � �pYJ R 't t-W Li afii i r *r1f,ngQf tBr pct rap �A e� � �►�31 1 kJgtr y ,ja dill 1g,a�wt�a �Y1{ t A i'rdq ony ts- �w}N"T tD1V .["� o'y � < �'•- �O y,fSuJ A °vZ C hG .�°`s ��4 Via` z/ �> �4 � f s.?"G f�y" r� � r ':., _y CIL yY'JY, 4'. i •aa'VJN G 7 c .vr�^ " A� b.. C ...c<' t A o-, a• },,>4 K� f y }equeat� ,d � � n � A�IJKi Fc3y Qfb�2 813iH,f2 Gt � � r des'`; rr��`t'' il�t�t��' � 'aids-��}t�+t;¢riar,�F•�'�yyc p s��a art av�, '":.; t� �'• .F„K ry, -cJ 9 ; ♦J�q � 'Mp'� c .. $�a^b',4L'rA�'7 .xSU� a t,+,y'e �•"�'.ry ]�Jw'�"'� z".s ��/Y/J_Q5�1 �J�/" j��/y IXhT�1f�6/�I fiJ > 8rsdr�mdW � (: Z^ 'Ne�Jr. � � � -. .i S'p` t .� , �c i' y, y. �' LN d Y:'��e�' •:vGv'c..,-L �r �"y,,�.�, '� -.vttiu � + ,1.f'v �. .rosV @ y �dhTv j• e+ t'3„-•'� a o 9( r �, S�Lr'�. �°� y i��6�{e•bJi 11� s� ;'v � �y d-d"y, " p�,F � _ i �.�c�Jl 'm,� t .+. ..�S �¢,d 1� r J} c J.n��i i C^�'�`r ihlir ,�j e y n.1i�, ., k r w�..' r�, ':r, y,x•l�'n�•F`tf�z a! e E �.�i�A�4'�'��v... �';i�eerrs2a#t~i sf� 1.j�Ei �s��'.�?C�7ti�1181ft�d}+ ��+�r�Tl�P7�tatJl�tl�p�}'e1i�l�tr�ll�•aiC�B -V ', f;' a. _ ,7;� � r/ t Joy s r.�}r .•'n.�ay .. This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head — 171f,q le ur61Z Advisory Body Chairpersob City Clerk(ori Inaq Page 2 of 3 x,03 1J4'uf ds�� Attachment 8 We are respectfully appealing the Architectural Review Commissions decision to give final approval to the project at 399 Foothill. The project's Zoning is C-NS, the'S' overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. We dont think the Commission looked hard enough at the projects overall impact to the surrounding neighborhood. In conflict with Chapter 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations (A3 and A8), the design is not compatible with and does not enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, exterior materials or roof styles. Noise:The heights of the lofts will allow any noise made on the patios to be projected directly onto neighboring properties. Privacy: The lofts are situated in such a way as to greatly impact the neighbor's privacy. Parking: The lofts on the second story are larger in square footage than the actual bedrooms.Whether the builder intended them as bedrooms is irrelevant- they will be used as bedrooms. In that case, there is not nearly enough parking for the possible 11 people who might live here. Architecture: The architecture does not match the single family, gable roof, homes in the neighborhood or even the new apartments across Tassajara and there is no legal use of corrugated tin roof anywhere nearby. The lofts on the second story, in reality, make this a 3 story structure and there are no 3 story structures in this neighborhood. Notification: Most of the neighbors were not notified about the Administrative Hearing on Feb. 15, 2008 and the ones that knew about it could find very little information about the specific plans. • � - • _,t ;. " _ :��.: - � u _�. .. �.. a' Y � � \moi �1i���` II � ���.,y,yy y� � "�';��i 1. y\.b' I Sly `�Y� 1 1 ��A'�f�tf �il-If k+�1.1rfl A •• n r.. •- '••' I--\: +`k�� I. .� �/�r+�iul i ♦ i.�l�% r ,. . .•.r: h 4{ \+.—. k t tet• r .h �I - . :+.-4 a �• i� } � ., ,4�� (� ��,�.. '�ply` ��1�; � '� �i r,4�, r , � ifi �'r ii• fi{{UU" .l'I.t � � ri1 r i � c'•M� � �\ �t ��' �a� "��Cj 3Si1 ,•`.• -.-, nl u 1. S i!\fF� Y {1�'Taj, _.—fix Y� /�.�� �l�yt � �i • ie;r-��YY� �: i� •` i _•-,;,� --. ry i � l� � � �i •. .,�' .. �, `�:1w �'/ �_ I .. �'ll �. �, f. �� � ,,,�. 0 ti L t J1 A�� III' 1 1 '"�" 11� liM1 i. ^��' �� ��V �a�ji`.�7��•� '�� ��;��1 1I 1• �-J yy�y�.`�Yi °� �,'{�t� ��X�rll t .:;;�4.i�. �;� �Qa�."' l4' la I^i^.• �..�'� �i�.RtF'�.rW.(((("�- ; i a ,�, ..iri 1 7 C - �`�-�,'., _ _� t�' �. � W• •l*�A' ply . '�� . . � _ . . r "'� . . � �� - �— . . . Attachment 10 J � 'is vavrvssvi 2 N 0 UZ' c� m �o Lu O (4 CL LU f017 LU CL v' J i J 'is vavrvssvi cV \DI � O m o � J / f 0 / _ C Attachment 11 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55-07) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on March 3, 2008, approved a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,532 square feet of commercial floor area in the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on March 10, 2008; and WHEREAS, Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on March 12, 2008; 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 April 15, 2008, for the purpose of considering 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. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City 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: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 2 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby approving a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd., subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfn or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over %" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. The proposed cement plaster siding material on the building shall have a smooth hand trawled finish. 4. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the 3-sill n Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 3 public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-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. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the 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 or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 6. As shown on Sheet A-1 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 7. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 8. The building plan submittal shall provide a second set of waste-wheelers for trash and recycling for the residential units to share within their dedicated enclosure. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 4 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of April, 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon well, City Attorney ® Attachment 12 Draft Resolution`B" RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55-07) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on March 3, 2008, approved a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,532 square feet of commercial floor area in the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on March 10, 2008; and WHEREAS, Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve& Stephanie Hilstein, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on March 12, 2008; 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 April 15, 2008, for the purpose of considering 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. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City 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: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby denying a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd., application No. ARC 55-07. • Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 2 On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15`h day of April, 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Filing Fee: $100.('" Paid ✓ R t' Tty �t rt � f N/A 12 2008 'REFER TO SECTION SLO CITY CLERK GM6 san tuts OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFOIWAT70N S LJO 9 3'7 S' Xr' V c 4- .tTzFPWq sic= �!i[.Sp�i a /! %/Js.r q .g�ii art 0 g r3 Yo S_ Ngm4�� .mss r _g i�_ Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20;of the,San Luis Obispo ;_`, Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the; (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: R Ro s u' fJ ' Vis- - 0? 39 S Fo o 7;yic.c_ i?L.y o 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: ?A -7 R-r c-.- 1 on_�'/ /hAn_c� C7 f1 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: No SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionfs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 r � C Reason for Appeal continued Se-e- L SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $100.* Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hewing, and to be prepared to make your case. .Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for Z�! 2 U O [� c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head — 171Alkle u!Lle, Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 Qir2 �\l e �J 8103 �Q![Q 2lJ/ dSe3�- We are respectfully appealing the Architectural Review Commissions decision to give final approval to the project at 399 Foothill. The project's Zoning is C-N-S, the 'S' overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. We don't think the Commission looked hard enough at the projects overall impact to the surrounding neighborhood. In conflict with Chapter 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations (A3 and A6), the design is not compatible with and does not enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, exterior materials or roof styles. Noise: The heights of the lofts will allow any noise made on the patios to be projected directly onto neighboring properties. Privacy: The lofts are situated in such a way as to greatly impact the neighbor's privacy. Parking: The lofts on the second story are larger in square footage than the actual bedrooms. Whether the builder intended them as bedrooms is irrelevant- they will be used as bedrooms. In that case, there is not nearly enough parking for the possible 11 people who might live here. Architecture: The architecture does not match the single family, gable roof, homes in the neighborhood or even the new apartments across Tassajara and there is no legal use of corrugated tin roof anywhere nearby. The lofts on the second story, in reality, make this a 3 story structure and there are no 3 story structures in this neighborhood. Notification: Most of the neighbors were not noted about the Administrative Hearing on Feb. 15, 2008 and the ones that knew about it could find very little information about the specific plans. Page 1 of 1 Cano, Elaina From: Davidson, Doug Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:08 AM To: Cano, Elaina; Ricci, Pam; Corey,Tyler Cc: Hooper, Audrey Subject: RE: Brett Cross Hi Elaina, We should keep in mind that it's the applicant that is being delayed in this case. The longer the delay, the better for the appellants who are opposed to the project. I think we should schedule the appeal for April 15th and Brett can re-arrange his schedule so he can attend on the 15th (or others from RQN can attend). We should be in charge of the schedule for an appeal and it's not fair to the applicant to drag this out to May 20th Doug Davidson, AICP City of San Luis Obispo Deputy Director, Development Review Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-781-7177 From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:51 AM To: Ricci, Pam; Corey; Tyler Cc: Davidson, Doug; Hooper, Audrey Subject: Brett Cross Hi Pam and Tyler, I spoke with Brett Cross this morning and let him know that we were trying to schedule the ARC appeal for April 15th. He wasn't sure that he would be available on that date and asked when the next available Council meeting would be. Because the.May 6d' meeting is going to be really full with the Mitchell Park item, I told him that the next meeting would be on May 200i- He understood that he would have to sign an agreement to have his item heard after the 45 day deadline and was ok with doing so. He will give me a call back this afternoon to see what day works best for him. I will keep you posted. Elaina 3/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:01 PM To: Hampian, Ken; Stanwyck, Shelly; Lowell, Jonathan P; Mandeville,John; Hooper, Audrey; Corey,Tyler; Ricci, Pam; Davidson, Doug; 'allen @ ferromobius.com' Cc: Betz, Ryan Subject: ARC Appeals Attachments: Cross-4-15-08.pdf; Evans-Milstead -4-15-08.pdf Attached are (2) appeals for ARC 55-07, 399 Foothill Boulevard. We received the first appeal on March loth from RQN, Brett Cross, and the second one today from, Keith Evans. I explained to Mr. Evans that an appeal was already submitted for this project,but he was adamant about filling an appeal of his own with separate concerns. The public hearing is scheduled for April 15th with a time of 30 minutes. Should this not be the correct time please feel free to change it on the 6o day. Thanks, Elaina 3/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:51 AM To: Ricci, Pam; Corey, Tyler Cc: Davidson, Doug; Hooper, Audrey Subject: Brett Cross Hi Pam and Tyler, I spoke with Brett Cross this morning and let him know that we were trying to schedule the ARC appeal for April 15th. He wasn't sure that he would be available on that date and asked when the next available Council meeting would be. Because the May 6h meeting is going to be really full with the Mitchell Park item, I told him that the next meeting would be on May 20th. He understood that he would have to sign an agreement to have his item heard after the 45 day deadline and was ok with doing so. He will give me a call back this afternoon to see what day works best for him. I will keep you posted. Elaina 3/12/2008 Filing Fee: $100.00' Paid ® Date Received Cly/ 0� NIA RECEIVE® ' ''.�- '�,�f I Sdn LUIS OB1 Sp0 DEFER TO sEcnonf a MAR 10 2008 SLO CITY ERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION &Sade&As W'6-4�646x .s Pp. �vo�L 126oL1 Name Mailing Address and Zap Code Phone Fax '4tt CAo55 !Zr 7 ,Ing(z1NFQs Co.► Gwt, a,,, �13�s Representative's Name MailincjAddress and Zip Code Ch,a;o-gA e croA) Sos Z34��-/S 7a Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: A 3. Z6 8 g 3. The application or project was entitled: f7 S -0�- rFi rf 399 1) It 1ita- _=`= 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. PA.^ F on C0 /'08 (Staff Members Name and Department) (pate) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This farm continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued A115: SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100%which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the Chitty Council. /// 4, (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter too/a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for d 0 c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head — /YjQ,.t We r/iLLe- Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(ori inal) Page 2 of 3 4. LRIed 8/03 ,bo ccy /') au;W X rr ti. w jai Residents for (Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 March 10, 2008 RE: Appeal of Architectural. Review Commission approval of application ARC 55-07, 399 Foothill Blvd. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods does hereby appeal the decision of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission regarding the approval of a mixed use project comprised of 1532 square feet of commercial floor area and four dwelling units being proposed for the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd and South Tassajara Drive, ARC 55- 07 for the following reasons: 1. The project is not architecturally consistent with the surrounding R-1 (single- family) neighborhood in character or in scale. The project's overall height and setbacks are inconsistent with the surrounding R-1 (single family) neighborhood. The underlying zone is CN (commercial neighborhood) with an S designation. The S designation (Special Considerations) was placed on the property to ensure that any proposal would be consistent with the character and scale of the surrounding single-family residences and that any uses would be compatible with an R-1 neighborhood. 2. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element section 7.2.1- Character, Size, Density and Quality. Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. 3. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element section 3.2.6-Neighborhood Preservation. It significantly alters the character of the property making it different from the surrounding residences. 4. The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element policy 2.2.10- Compatible Development. The proposed development would create a dwelling and site plan that is clearly different than the surrounding R-1 development. 5. The parking requirements are inadequate for the proposed uses. Loft areas in units 2, 3, and 4 were not included in the parking calculations. The lack of available on- site parking will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 6. The 10-foot setback along Foothill Blvd. is inadequate to ensure that the scenic view corridor is maintained along Foothill Blvd. Circulation Element policy 15.0.1 Views: The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from streets and roads. In particular,the route segments shown in Figure 6 and the Conservation and Open Space Element are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. 15.0.3. Development Along Scenic Routes Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. 7. The project does not include sufficient area for trash containment for both the commercial and residential uses. The lack of adequate trash containment will necessitate frequent collection which will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity due to traffic, noise, and air pollution. 8. The project will interfere with solar access of the adjacent property to the west. 9. Upper level decks will create overlook issues with adjacent properties. Sincerely, Brett Cross, RQN Chair Page I of I Hooper, Audrey From: Corey, Tyler Sent Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:15 PM To: Hooper, Audrey Cc: Cano, Elaina Subject RE: Appeals-399 Foothill Blvd Hi Audrey, I have forwarded both ARC appeals to the applicant and they are ok with the April 15th hearing date. Thanks for the follow-up. Sincerely, Tyler Corey Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7169 From: Hooper, Audrey Sent- Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:11 PM To: Corey,Tyler Ce. Cano, Elaina Subject: Appeals-399 Foothill Blvd Tyler, I just spoke to Elaina(she's on vacation)and she wasn't dear whether you'd let the applicant know that two appeals had been received for 399 Foothill Blvd. Did you do that and are they okay with the April 15th hearing date? Audrey �Y Iz 3/26/2008 RPR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY HN='OMS 805 594 0365 To•8057817109 P. 1/6 All Q Residents for Quality.Neighborhoods RED FILE P 0. Box 12604 • San Lui Obispp 93406 eMA-tL ® COUNCIL CDD DIR _ MEETING AGENDA 15 CAO FIN DIR RECEIVED DA S 0� ITEM #2t!3— M ATTORNEY ?T PW 018 CAO FIRE HIEF APR 14 2008 115 CLERK/ORI© ET POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK DATE: April 14, 132008 DEPT HEADS A REC DIR TO: San Luis Obispo City Coun itRJ/3-_ Z uT1L DIR VIA: Fax to: 781-7109 TiZ id unto -C HR DIR auAJer RE. MEETING DATE: 4-15-08, ITEM: PH-3 64-6 SUB3ECT: APPEALS OF THE ARCHICTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS APPROVAL OF A MDCED-USE PR03ECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55-07) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The issue before you Is an appeal of the ARC decision approving a proposed mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Boulevard. The zoning Is C-N with a Special Considerations Overlay. The property is located in the midst of a large low-density residential (R-1) zone. RQN is one of two appellants in this action. Our comments, stated below, concern the following five (S) issues, the lofts; the lack of parking; the undisclosed commercial use(s); the official building setback line on Foothill Boulevard; and, the apparent lack of Importance attached to the "5" overlay designation. The Lofts As we all know, In this town, every room In a residential unit, including the garage, has the potential to become a bedroom. According to the Zoning Regulations lofts are not "designated" sleeping areas. However, that does not mean they will not be used for that purpose. In fact, Appellant #2, has noted that the proposed lofts appear to be larger than the rooms that are labeled bedrooms. The Council needs to review this project with an eye to the number of people who could actually live in these units and not assume that since it Is a one-bedroom, one- loft unit it will only house two people. The proximity of the project to Cal Poly and Cuesta College makes it ideal living quarters for students. And, one of the ways students cut their expenses Is to share their space with more people. The proposed loft feature clearly provides the capability to add at least two more individuals in each of these units. Furthermore, these would be residents who are not included in the project's density calculations. This sort of overcrowding has the potential to create more noise, more traffic and the need for more parking which is not consistent with our General Plan. APR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY H011MMB 805 594 0365 To:8057817109 P.2/6 April 14, 2008 .rte Appeal - 399 Foothill Boulevard Page 2 The Parkins Issue Because lofts are not considered bedrooms and are not calculated In the density formula, they are not included in the parking calculations. Thus, there is an unregulated potential to create a project that is woefully under parked. If residents of the project walked, rode a bike, took the bus, or, just stayed home it is highly possible that many of the "shared use" parking places might not be available during the day. This would certainly create a conflict with workers or customers associated with the commercial aspect of this project. The Commercial Use Because the commercial use has not been disclosed It Is hard to determine what the actual demand for daytime parking would be. The Zoning Regulations list a myriad of uses that could range from a low to a high demand for parking. When parking Is to be shared there should be some guarantee that spaces will be available during the establishment's hours of operation and that residents will be able to park where they live. If parking Is not available for either the business patrons or the project's residents, then it will spill out and impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The Building Setback Line (MC Chapter 17.74). § 17.74.100 of The Official Building Setback Line Ordinance establishes the street frontage setback for all development (commercial and residential) along Foothill Blvd. (see: Attachment"A"). According to analysis done for a previous application on this site (ARC 76-04) and, more recently, for one at 730/748 Foothill (TR/ER 108-07) the building setback line, pursuant to the ordinance, for both projects was determined to be 15 feet. The project before you has a building setback line of 10 feet on the Foothill frontage. No exception to this regulation has been applied for or granted. It is our opinion that this project must be in compliance with the official set back line of 15 feet. APR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY H '-'-.0M8 805 594 0365 To'8057817109 P.3/6 April 14, 2008 0 Appeal - 399 Foothill Boulevard Page 3 The "S" Zoning Designation In 1992 the Council rezoned 399 Foothill Boulevard from C-N to C-N-S (GP/R 1537). Ordinance No. 1208 set forth the following special considerations to be taken Into account for future development on this site: 1. Compatibility with Surroundina Residential uses: The special considerations overlay zone is intended to insure that type and Intensity of uses which may locate on this site are compatible with surrounding residential uses, and are consistent with General Plan policies regarding the type and scale of commercial uses allowed within residential neighborhoods. 2. Scale of Development' The special considerations zone is intended to insure that future development on the site will be consistent with the scale of other structures In the immediate vicinity. 3. Traffic: The special considerations zone is intended to insure appropriate location of driveways serving the site, and to limit uses to those which will not generate volumes of traffic which cannot be handled safely by adjoining streets and which exceed standards normally acceptable for residential uses. The third-story lofts proposed in this project are not compatible with the height standards and scale of the surrounding R-1 neighborhoods. In our opinion a two-story project would transition much better with the surrounding R-1 neighborhood and would be In compliance with the special considerations overlay zone. The condition of this property, as it stands today, Is atrocious. An attractive and compatible project that does not create Impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and passersby would be a welcome relief. RQN's appeal deals with only a few elements of this proposal that, if changed, would further the goals defined by the "5" designation making it more compatible with the very large surrounding low density R-1 residential neighborhoods. (see: Vicinity Map, Staff Report, p. 3-10) APR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY HPL`MMB 805 594 0365 To:,8057817109 P.4/6 April 14, 2008 Appeal - 399 Foothill Boulevard Page 4 We, therefore, request that the council: 1. Eliminate the third story lofts; and, 2. Uphold RQN's Appeal based on the fact that the project does not conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements as stated in Finding #1, to wit: it is not in compliance with §17.74.100 of "The Official Building Setback Line Ordinance" for Foothill Boulevard. Respectfully submitted, Aar ao" Brett Cross Chairperson, RQN Attachment APR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY HC"-'OMB 805 594 0365 T 057817109 P.5/6 April 14, 2008 Attachment"A' Appeal - 399 Foothill Boulevard Page S MC Chapter 17.74; Building Setback Lines 17.74.010 Title This chapter shall be known and cited as the "Official Building Setback Line Ordinance" of the city. (Prior code § 9300.8) 17.74.020 Purpose—Adoption of building setback lines. This chapter is enacted to enable adoption of official building setback lines for the city, and to provide for the designation, recording, enforcement of and appeal from such official building setback lines. (Prior code § 9300) 17.74.030 Purpose—Protection of master street and highway plan. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the master street and highway plan adopted by the city. The street and highway plan is being adopted In order to: A. Serve as a general guide for the development of streets and highways; B. Promote the public welfare, safety and convenience; C. Provide a comprehensive guide for capital outlay on street and highway improvements in the city; . D. Provide an authentic source of information for residents and Investors in the city; E. To obviate the menace to the public safety and the damage to property values resulting from inadequate provision of traffic thoroughfares. (Prior code § 9300.1) November 10, 2002 17.74.100 Foothill Boulevard. The map adopted by Ordinance No. 56, 1957 Series, is designated as the "Official Building Setback Lines of Foothill Boulevard," and the building setback line is forty- feet in the commercial and manufacturing land use districts, and thirty-eight feet in residential land use districts, on both sides of the centerline shown on the map, except on Sheets 2A and 3A as amended by Ordinance No. 346, 1966 Series. (Prior code § 9300.4.5) MC Chapter 17.08 Uses Allowed in Several Zones... 17.08.072 Mixed Use Projects This Section provides standards for the design of mixed use projects. A. Design considerations. A mixed use.project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives. 1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses. 2. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant Impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. RPR-13-2008 23:51 From:CYDNEY H[I"r3MB 805 594 0365To 7817109 P.6/6 605 April 14, 2008 Attachment"A" Appeal - 399 Foothill Boulevard Page 6 3. The design of the mixed use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential Impacts. 4. The design of a mixed use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 5. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 6. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Land Use Element 2.2.10 Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A. Architectural Character New Buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. B. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation Element.) Housing Element Goal 7 Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and improve neighborhood appearance and function. 3.13.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. RED',_ RECEIVED ME NG AGENDA CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR 112008 April 10, 2�$-�-E� ITEM # -- APR 1 1 2008 SLO CITY CLERK Tyler Corey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's approval of a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd. (ARC 55-07) For more than 30 years my wife and I have owned the 23 South Tassajara Drive home just a half block south of the proposed 399 Foothill development. I attended and spoke at the March P ARC meeting. I will be out of town this coming April 15, and therefore will not be able to speak at the city council meeting. The 399 Foothill development was presented, embraced and approved at the ARC meeting as being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This proposed commercial-looking structure is not a compatible style with my cape cod style home as well as my neighbors' mostly hip and gable roof homes. The proposed structure rendering may have looked good as a stand- alone building to the ARC members,but in our neighborhood it will not fit visually. This proposed "modem"building appears on the Tassajara side to be an industrial-looking, two- story, flat-topped building with three "backyard-type" sheds on top as the third stories. It's really kind of ugly compared to the average home on our street or as compared to a recently more nicely executed development just across on the southeast corner of Tassajara and Foothill. The proposed building looks like it was lifted from another place and time and accidentally dropped at that corner of our neighborhood. And not even dropped aligned with our lot lines or houses at that. Even though the address of this development is on Foothill, it has the most street frontage on our Tassajara Drive—more than two times that of the Foothill frontage. Therefore, this fact should be considered becausei of the direct impact it will have on our predominantly family home neighborhood:on Tassajara. The size,the number of units plus a commercial space is just too much for this tiny piece of land. This development's inadequately addressed parking needs will flow out into our neighborhood and mostly consume the street parking in front of my neighbors' and my home during the day. I have experienced a grocery store, a bicycle shop, a preschool and a supplement store at 399 Foothill in the 30 years I have had my home, and none of these uses will have come close to impacting the neighborhood parking and traffic as much as this development as proposed. Lastly, hopefully the drainage out of our block piped under the surface of this property has been and will be adequately scrutinized. In years past when we would experience those rare half-inch to inch-an-hour type rains such as the mid '90s "March Miracle,"water would build up into the back third or fourth of my property and also flood my neighbor's.slightly lower backyards. So any compromise of this drainage and maintenance of it would create flooding problems. Thank you for your attention to my note, and thank you for servinF all of us in your valuable capacity. maj - fCOUNC L � CDD DIR CAO D-FIN DIR OIyACAO 2r FIRE CHIEF ya ATTORNEY .'0 PW pIR John Magee L2 CLERK/ORIG �POLICE CHF jU D H DS id'REC DIR o gUTIL DIR SHR DIR RED FILE 1 �cJoUNCIL RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA r� Do DIR �ACAO (? FIN DIR. APR I 1 2008 ITEM # _ j __ J,�'FIRE CI'iIEF DA n'ATTORNEY DPW DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL ,2'CLERK/ORIG ei POLICE CHF ❑ PT Ha____�er.HR �REC DIR ,0'UTIL DIR DIR April 101 200 iGAO- Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council, It is my opinion that the property at 399 Foothill Blvd. should not be used for both bommercial and housing. Cramming both housing and a commercial business on that corner lot will create more safety issues for the very dangerous intersection of Foothill Blvd and Tassajara. I have lived across the street from 399 Foothill Blvd. for 30 years. The number of accidents that have - occurred at that *ntersection has been staggering: Just last week another accident occurred! i Vehicles speeding..do*n...Fa6thi1l . B1vd. have lost control and have ended up in the front yard of 399 Foothill on several occasions! I have had my fence periodically taken out as well. A garbage truck overturned in front of 399 Foothill and it had to be put upright with airbags. The most devastating accident occurred when the grocery clerk who bagged my groceries was killed , v¢hen: .' h2.. ._ driver of a pian who didn"t; see him and turned in front of him, struck and killed him on his bike. ' To add 4 condos and a commercial business at that location in a neigh- borhood o0ingle family homes is further going to jeopardize the safety of the neighbors and the neighborhood. Sincerely, Naoma Wright 400 Foothill blvd. San Luis Obispo , CA. 93405 543-5232 April 15, 2008 Council meeting appeal (ARC 55-07)