HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A USE PERMIT REQUEST WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED EXPANSION OF TH fiN114F,#i city of San tuts OBISPO YEflNOPTE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT r"'NUMSM:
Rik WWI
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smith
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission to deny a use permit request which would have
allowed expansion of the Grace Church, located at the north corner of Osos
and Pismo Streets.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal, and allow the Planning Commission's action to deny the use
permit request to stand.
DISCUSSION:
Grace Church applied for a use permit to allow construction of an extensive addition to
the church, involving demolition of several houses on adjacent property owned by the
church.
The Planning Commission denied the use permit application on January 11, 1989 (resolution
attached). The use permit was required for the following reasons:
-Expansion of a use which requires use permit approval in the R-2 zone.
-Addition to a nonconforming structure (setbacks, existing lot coverage and parking
do not meet current standards).
-Proposed coveragewould exceed standards (72% proposed, 50% normally allowed).
-Reduced Pismo Street setback for addition (ten feet proposed for a portion of new
building, twenty feet normally required).
-Additional off-site parking is proposed.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS:
A negative declaration has been approved for the project by the Director. No significant
fiscal or other impacts are expected.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the council approves the use permit, the project may proceed. The ARC must still
grant final approval of the building design and the Community Development Director must
approve a lot combination if the project is to proceed.
��► �H I�U city of San LUIS OBISpo
MoGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1350 Osos Street
Applicant: Grace Church
Representative: Greg Wilhelm, Architect
Zoning: R-2-H
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Status: Mitigated negative declaration approved by Director
Site Description
The site consists of six lots of record comprising a 32,900 square-foot rectangle with a
245-foot frontage on Pismo Street and 160-foot frontage on Osos Street. The existing
church building and three houses (one of which includes a detached building which may
have been occupied as a fourth residence) currently occupy the site. The houses are
being used by the church as Sunday School classrooms.
Approximately six mature trees are located in the construction area, several of which are
to be removed. The site is subject to flooding to a depth of two feet or less during
100-year design storm conditions.
The site is surrounded by various offices and residential uses. Mitchell Park is located
southeast of the site across Pismo Street and a convenience market is located at the
south corner of the Osos/Pismo intersection.
EVALUATION
1.0 Appeal and Proiect Descrintion
The letter of appeal filed by the applicant does not indicate a specific basis for the
appeal. The applicant's testimony to the Planning Commission focused on the cultural
significance of consolidated and expanded church activities, the density of surrounding
development on several nearby parcels and the presence of considerable open space near
the project site in the form of off-site parking lots and Mitchell Park .
The applicant proposes to add approximately 25,000 squaie feet to the existing 19,000
square-foot church facility. The new facilities would include office space and
classrooms, in addition to an assembly/gymnasium room. Off-site parking in addition to
that previously approved by the city is proposed.
The project involves demolition of several wood frame houses located on the site, and
combination of the underlying lots of record. Several mature trees would be removed.
As part of the project, the applicant has agreed to install an upgraded water line in
Osos Street to meet fire protection requirements.
A more detailed description of various aspects of the site and project are contained in
the following sections of this report, along with analysis of significant issues
identified by staff.
411111JUM,111 City Of san LUIS omspo
MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
2.0 Nonconforming Status
A legally nonconforming structure is one which complied with all applicable zoning
regulations at the time it was established, but does not comply with current standards.
The existing church is considered legally nonconforming for several reasons:
- Lack of Parking. No parking is provided on site; off-site parking must receive use
permit approval and meet certain minimum standards before it can be considered to
meet Zoning Regulations. 138 spaces which meet these requirements are needed to for
the church to be considered conforming, but only 81 are existing. Proposed
additional parking is discussed below.
- Setbacks. The existing building is set back ten feet from both Osos and Pismo
Streets. A twenty-foot setback is required by current standards, unless a use permit
is approved. Also, the building is set back five feet from the northwest property
line. A nine-foot setback is required by current standards, unless a use permit with
solar access findings is approved.
- Coverage. The existing structure covers 68% of the parcel it occupies; 50% is the
maximum under current regulations, unless an exception is approved.
3.0 Suitability of Site
3.1 General Plan Policies. Section C.2.g of the Land Use Element includes the
following policy statement:
"Residential neighborhoods should be separated from incompatible nonresidential
land uses.-Nonresidential uses which serve neighborhood needs (convenience
shopping, schools, parks, day care centers, churches, lodges, and similar public
or semipublic facilities) should be considered conditionally
compatible—subject to evaluation of site development plans."
Section C.2.a refers to new development in existing residential neighborhoods being
consistent with the general plan:
"...provided that the design and placement are compatible with prevailing or
proposed neighborhood character and [contingent upon] the availability of
adequate infrastructure, public facilities and circulation."
3.2 Other Land Use Issues. The project will not displace existing uses, since the
church already occupies the various buildings on the site. The project may intensify
the church's use of the site somewhat, but it is impossible to predict accurately how
much the project will increase the number of users or frequency of use by the church.
It seems unlikely that church activities in the new building will increase conflicts
with nearby commercial or office uses. Eleven residential units will remain on the
block, all within 200 feet of the addition. Noise generated by activities in the new
building may affect tenants in those units, depending on the time of the activities,
4111111ppf ll city of san Luis mispo -
flMormis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
whether windows are open, etc. Typical hours of church activities are likely to be
such that noise would be a minor nuisance rather than a significant adverse impact.
Enforcement of city noise regulations will also serve as a practical means to limit
nuisances which may occur.
3.3 Size of Site. The church site would be one of the largest in the Old Town
historical preservation district, comparable in size to the St. Stephens Episcopal
Church and Vista Grande Apartments sites, and slightly smaller than Victoria Square
condominiums.
During previous reviews of various projects in the Old Town section of the city,
various commissioners, councilmembers, and neighborhood residents have maintained
that assembly of small lots to form large sites is incompatible with the
neighborhood's historic character. Others have taken the view that other development
characteristics - such as building style and scale, setbacks and landscaping are
more important.
Although the houses to be removed are identified as "contributing" to the historic
character of the Old Town district, staff would note other factors which might make
this project's location more suitable for a large site development than others in the
Old Town:
-None of the most significant structures is located in the same block.
-The site is on the edge of the district, adjoining office uses to the rear. I
-Mitchell Park provides a large open space, lessening the visual impact.
This policy issue is currently being studied along with other neighborhood
compatibility issues. No formal policy has been adopted by the council or
commission.
4.0 Coverage and Setbacks. Coverage and setbacks are intended to provide an appropriate
pattern of building masses and open spaces in a neighborhood.
Section 17.16.020.B of the Zoning Regulations allows the Planning Commission to grant
exceptions to maximum coverage requirements for churches, subject to approval of a use
permit. The exception provision was recently added to the regulations at the request of
Grace Church. The implementing ordinance included findings that churches typically are a
less intense land use; that their architecture and site planning is typically different
than other uses; coverage ratios allowed in some zones are unnecessarily restrictive as
applied to churches; and that the city wants to allow for the reasonable, efficient and
economically feasible development of churches in a manner compatible with surrounding
uses..
Section 17.16.020.E.2.a allows reduction of street yards to ten feet, subject to use
permit approval. No specific criteria are included in this section, although the general
criteria for use permits apply.
'm111111F.1§ City Of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
The applicant is requesting 72% coverage where 50% is the maximum normally allowed in the
R-2 zone, and a ten-foot setback from Pismo Street where a twenty foot setback is
normally allowed. (Staff would note that actual coverage of the site is slightly higher
than 72%; portions of the covered walkways have been excluded from the calculations as
eave and balcony projections.)
4.1 Visual Impact. Staff questions whether the pattern of building mass and open
space is appropriate for the medium density residential zone. The combined effect of
the coverage, setbacks, and building location result in a two-story compound which
Visually walls off over 80% of the site. This contrasts significantly with more
typical development patterns in the neighborhood and R-2 zones citywide, where
coverage is 50% or less and 30% of a corner lot's area is devoted to street yards.
The project also contrasts significantly with development patterns typical of
churches in residential zones. Setbacks and outdoor landscape/recreation areas are
smaller. A more significant difference is the absence of on-site parking, which
typically occupies up to half of a church site.
Visual impact was considered by the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission
and ARC. The first two found that the proposed structure was "out of scale and
character" with the historic nature of the neighborhood. The ARC did not take a
formal vote, but the majority of commissioners commenting suggested that the building
mass be broken up visually or reduced.
4.2 Intensity of Use. In addition to regulating the patterns of building mass and
open areas, the coverage regulations serve as limit on the intensity of land uses.
While staff has not identified specific factors which are likely to result in serious
land use conflicts as a result of the proposed project, it seems likely that the
coverage exception will result in more intense use of the site than would occur if no
exception were proposed. The Planning Commission did not raise objections to the
Project on that basis, however.
5.0 Parkins
As noted above, the church is legally nonconforming with regard to parking; under current
standards, 138 spaces would be required. The requirement is based on the capacity of the
largest assembly area, which is the existing sanctuary..
Although the proposed addition will not technically increase the parking requirement, the
commission may wish to consider the practical impact of the parking shortage in view of
the intensified use of the site.
In 1976, the Planning Commission approved a use permit allowing the construction of a
parking lot serving the San Luis Medical Clinic and the church, located across Osos
Street from the church. 81 spaces are apparently available to the church in this lot
during all times except normal Monday-Friday business hours, when six spaces are
available. The lot is owned by the clinic, which has granted a parking easement to the
church through the year 2007. After that, the clinic may terminate the church's right to
use of the parking by giving six months notice to the church. Some of the spaces are
farther from the church than the 300-foot maximum specified in the Zoning Regulations.
44111211 city of san Luis osispo
COUNUL AGENOA REPORT
Page 6
The applicant is also proposing additional off-site parking:
870 Pacific Street. This is a 24-space parking lot owned by the clinic. Terms
of church use are similar to the 81-space lot, except that the clinic may
terminate the church's use on six months notice at any time the lot is developed
for other than parking use. This lot is more than 300 feet from the church.
889 Marsh. The Post Office authorized the church to use their 26-space parking
lot on Sunday mornings. The Post Office parking is more than 300 feet from the
church, however, and the authorization is not exclusive, nor does it specify the
duration of the authorization.
Of the 131 spaces proposed, only the 81 spaces previously approved can be considered to
meet the minimum standards established for off-site parking. Staff would also note some
concern with the potential for development of the various lots for other uses than
parking.
While staff would generally be supportive of shared parking to meet at least part of a
church's parking requirement, it seems questionable whether the amount and location of
parking available in this case is adequate to justify the expansion of the nonconforming
building. The Planning Commission cited parking deficiency in their resolution denying
the application.
6.0 Water Main Deficiency
The water mains serving the church site and much of the surrounding neighborhood are not
adequate to provide required fire flow. The applicant has agreed to pay for upgrading
the water main in Osos Street between Marsh Street and Pismo Street, and extending a main
along the Pismo Street frontage in front of the property, to serve fire hydrants. Their
letter (attached) indicates their expectation that a large part of the cost will be
reimbursed by the city, since the upgraded main would provide benefit to many other
properties. Public Works staff has indicated support for this arrangement, but the final
determination on reimbursement of costs would be up to the City Council. Meanwhile, the
city is proceeding with the bid process for the waterline project independently of the
church's project; the council approved the plans and specifications, and authorized staff
to advertise for bids, on February 7, 1989.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may uphold the appeal (approving the use permit) if the findings in the
attached draft resolution are supported. Suggested conditions of approval are also
included.
The council may deny the appeal; a draft resolution upholding the Planning Commission's
findings is attached.
The council may continue the application, with direction to the applicant and staff _
regarding project revisions or additional information needed. The council and ARC must
act by May 21, 1989.
11'1m1jQljj cmy of san lues o8ispo
_ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Fire and Public Works Departments note the water line deficiency which is to be corrected
prior to construction, and estimate the church's share of the cost at $14,000.
Engineering staff notes that flood gates will be required on the building, and that no
adverse impact on other structures will result since the addition will not raise flood
levels.
Building staff notes that additional fire protection may be required by the UBC on some
interior and exterior walls, but that the form of the building will not be significantly
affected.
RECOMMENDATION
Although staff and the Planning Commission do not necessarily oppose the concept of
church expansion on the site, the design of any expansion should be more in keeping with
the scale and character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends the council adopt the
attached draft resolution denying the appeal subject to findings adopted by the Planning
Commission.
A draft resolution upholding the appeal and including required findings and conditions
i
for approval is also attached.
Attachments
Draft Resolution - Denial
Draft Resolution - Approval
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Appeal Form
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes 1/11/89 (Not available @ agenda clos Will be delivered
ARC Minutes 1/30/89 (Not available @ agenda close under separate c vex
CHC Memos
Initial Study
Applicant's Letter: Fireflow deficiency
gts5:u1409cc
I
O RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO DENY A USE PERMIT FOR CHURCH EXPANSION
AT 1350 OSOS STREET (U1409)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Use Permit Application U1409 at a public
hearing conducted January 11, 1989, and determined to deny the application; and,
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1989, the applicantfiled•:an appeal requesting that the
council approve the use permit; and.
WHEREAS, on February 21, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and
takes an action to deny Use Permit.Application.U1409, based on the following findings:
SECTION 1. jgdingg;
1. The requested exceptions to setback and coverage standards would result in a pattern
of building masses and open space on the site which is incompatible with the existing
and desired pattern for the neighborhood.
2. The proposed project would result in the demolition of structures which contribute to
the historic character of the Old Town Historical Preservation District, and in their
replacement by a structure which is out of character and scale with the historic
nature of the district. .
3. The project would remain significantly deficient with regard to provision of
off-street parking which meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations, and the
major expansion of the structure is not justified in view of the nonconforming
parking situation.
On motion of seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES-
NOES:
ABSENT:
ate..
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST.
City Clerk
APPROVED:
1
gCitymPinistrative Officer
ty Attor
(J ^
Community Development Director "
�y
s
i.
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING CONSUSSION'S
ACTION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF
A CHURCH FACILITY AT 1350 OSOS STREET (U1409)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Use Permit Application U1409 at a public
hearing conducted January 11, 1989, and determined to deny the application;and
WHEREAS; on January 19, 1989, the applicant filed.an appeal requesting that the
council approve the use permit; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and
takes an action to approve Use Permit Application U1409, subject to the following
findings and conditions:
SECTION 1. Finding
U
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons
residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The mitigated negative,declaration of environmental impact approved by the Director
is hereby affirmed.
5. ' The requested coverage exception and the proposed setback reduction on the Pismo
Street frontage will not result in an inappropriate pattern of building masses and ,
open spaces on the site or in the neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Conditions
1. Coverage of the lot by structures shall not.exceed 14%.
2. That portion of the new building which is needed to provide a visual transition to
the existing sanctuary structure may be set back 10 feet from the Pismo Street
frontage:of the property, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission.
All other portions of the new structure shall comply with current setback standards.
C3. The building and site plans shall be revised to reduce the visual impact of the
building mass, to,the approval of thel Architectural Review Commission.
i
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Use Permit U1409
Page 2
4. Applicant shall pay the pro rata share of water main extension and hydrant
installation costs needed to upgrade water lines in Pismo Street adjacent to the
property frontage, to the approval of the Utilities Engineer (Estimated cost:
$14,000).
S. The proposed shared use of 131 off-site parking spaces is approved, said spaces to be
located as follows:
1321 Osos Street: 81 spaces
870 Pacific Street: 24 spaces
889 Marsh Street: 26 spaces
On motion of seconded
by and the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _i: day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Nri,�G . jc==
ity A ministrative Officer
/QtCity Attor
U
Community Development Director
ANTA RG A sl
E f �a a ' c acc oorflz ^s a 0 •
y.l a ��E ♦ •
A`J I _ O O O J •
f •
. E `
4q
ion
r E
C a
f' .
�rCo/
W/Cf : o •
c fill < S : '
sk
C �r� ..� ! �? Arg q' ?f i.. V • stsj .r
yg =ii11 w+y'` y
3 �r•�y NOy� •� l.11fKl��. •
OSOS S'
/ i2�i�i 12l5 /x! /3L 1941 )40
ARG "is : i M•w yYyr
AIL 1!'70 4; „J <� 16 AM. tog 3� ,
o•
AMC 07-?SPM s 3 moo
s
3r, Y •
.a '� xf aykd Yea. /r C •
� � a;'� < � �'��� �� lea � Q • secs �
g'� a"sct< se .-.. uz° yn,� R r"'fH !�.j � � � • _
4 • K
mot
_ -
ro vtKn! 1 s f TCb�R1I�-S
C! ) 1 lire, •� �. - ;v i�rt"° � `r
T3
:� •I�!� . ""tom!' - .,.• :dl�"�''''-.�" `•"'�'.:;,Q ;
2S. a. _ $"IrR��T ,„�•� ISIS 112•
.n
i
_`rte. ,a, ,..�:• _r,. .,•,... A +i. ::". _.PY��:,._�_ ,
=ice_ �a � ;�:• i"lJ7•t "c�®
.t :� •ilii:..,.:':.•
1" L� •• ��»a2uv,�.a ,
TV can
1�1� •. . aF:..
.rff CrA ` 47 irl'r'i
L
i3�'___ -'__�_.�.� ��� •- :.Z 0443 .� a/.
Q=f' t•.^L✓S..lf7�>*��l�G`r.
.',...�. .il � \�
: 5A
r:f.....a?G/• �1•'.' �•K.'3t .?.•�:s♦S".�•6iih..,.- mill �
�•c y 7 Q- � ��
f - y
X4 k
... Fj
r,
.-�_6;= �na�"!A: 7n••.i. �►1'�`� ��k� fi'+'7^Y•�L li ll••u�
'l. � ��t'i��l��✓�'��!�RL_�+C�rrT�r•�lG:L'.�w'.7?f,-;y+.�iL ��
w
s „1"
w
.: 1p
��frrfaaft►.i °��� .fit �f
Nil 9"M <<�
, \ W1 City ors' An soBispo
990 Palm Streel/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Oblspo.CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title. I. Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of IDatVAIIAIC C�MAfISS/0� _ rendered
on ( lslat?04 X98-9 which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needs ) :
See a7�aCW� ,er 40wc 14d4el ��� r�. 41� /� •
o '44-5407-3 89 .
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant: ��77
' �,c�.c<< Crticc,2crf
Name/Title
-
• RECEIVE ®
Representativ
JAN 1919
CmCLERK
SANwI6OBSP0•CA Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Ca 7red for: a / Copy to City Administrative Officer
Ca for:
Copy tg tie/fQi o ing department(s):
City Mer /`7 /�J T
i
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4073-89
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of the San
Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California on January 11,
1989, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. U1409
by Grace Church, applicant.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow a major addition to an existing non-conforming church
building; to allow 72% lot coverage where 50% is usually
required; to allow reduced street yard setback from 20-feet to
10-feet for a structure; and to allow off-site parking at 889
Marsh Street.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION: l
1350 Osos Street
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium-density Residential
PRESENT ZONE:
R-2-H
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections,
investigations and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of
testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the
following circumstances:
1. The requested exceptions to setback and coverage standards
would result in a pattern of building masses and open space on
the site which is incompatible with the existing and desired
pattern for the neighborhood.
i i
0
Resolution No. 4073-89
Use Permit U1409
Page .2
2. The proposed project would result in the demolition of
structures which contributeto the historic character of the
Old Town Historical Preservation District, and in their
replacement by a structure which is out-of-character and scale
with the historic nature of the district.
3 . The project would remain significantly deficient with regard to
provision of off-street parking which meets the requirements of
the Zoning Regulations, and the major expansion of the
structure is not justified in view of the non-conforming
parking situation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application. No. U1409 be
denied.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo, upon the motion of Commr. Roalman,
seconded by Commr. Schmidt, and upon the following roll call vote:
�! AYES: Commrs. Roalman, Schmidt, Duerk, Gerety, Hainline
NOES: Commrs. Crotser, Kourakis
ABSENT: None
Michael Multari, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: January 11, 1989
�illlllilll II IIIII� �������IIIIIIIh�IIIII IIIIII IIII city sAn luis oBispo �
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
November 4, 1988
TO: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
FROM Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CHC review of a proposal to Expand the Grace Church (1350 Osos Street).
At its November 3, 1988, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed a proposal to
expand the Grace Church on the northwest corner of Pismo and Osos Streets. After
discussing the impacts of the project on the area's historic character and receiving a
slide presentation from the project architect (Geg Wilhelm) the CHC took the following
action:
The CHC moves to deny the proposed project because it is incompatible with the
historic and architectural character of the neighborhood. The project is out of
character and scale with the historic nature of the neighborhood. (Vote 6-0 in
support of motion.)
Elements of the project that the CHC discussed included: the massing of the building;
building height; setbacks from the street; relationship to the architecture of the
existing church; architectural detailing and fenestration.
If you have any questions concerning the CHC's action, feel free to contact me.
TS:ts
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Boz 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
April 11, 1988
TO: Mike Multari, Community Development Director
FROM Gloria Heinz, Chairperson, Cultural Heritage Committee
SUBJECT:CHC comment on proposed demolition of houses at 1020, 1028, and 1036 Pismo
Street.
At its April 7, 1988 meeting the Cultural Heritage Committee considered a proposal by
Grace Church to demolish three houses on Pismo Street adjacent to the church and across
from Mitchell Park. Church representatives indicated that it was necessary to demolish
the structures to allow for a consolidation of church facilities on this site. The
consolidation would involve the construction of a new structure.
The CHC unanimously support the following motion concerning the houses at 1020, 1028, and
I036 Pismo:
The structures,.because of their location, significantly contribute_ to the historical
district.
It is the CHC's understanding that it will be given the opportunity to review any
construction project proposed by Grace Church at this location. If you have any
questions about the CHC's action, feel free to contact me.
TS:ts
cc Greg Smith
�i
i __ • -_. r mac .. . . € .
10
06,
h '
72
Ma
Al
a � "
r1.46 �
— r4
i
City of San Luis Obispo
Reference No. _ Name ( (Q I'Div nOX
Phone
Photo No.
Direction Date
Parcel No. yl E2 D G [7 D E:� Time Spent
Evaluation Score Q Reviewed by
V1 Evaluated by
v1
Location rtap
AFL►IrTHCTUF.AL ICRKS1=-
1. Address (J o2 0 & 5/"Y%"
2. 'Building Shape: Rectangular _� L-Shape Other
3. Stories: 11 2 3 Other _
_�4. Roof Shape: Gable _ Hipped Flat Gambrel
False Front Bell Cast Hipped Other
5. Roof Pitch: Low Medium High Flat
Red Tile
6. Roof Material : Tile Builtun Co=ositic2A_(Gravel)=
Wood Shingle Composition Shingle 1 �4i -ther_———
7. Eaves: Close Projecting ✓ None � '
8. Roof Trim: (a) Gable End: Projecting Roof Edge ✓ Cornice.
Bargeboard Parapet Mission Style
Decorated
(b) Special Features.: Cupola Finial
Gingerbread Widow's Walk Pendant
Ornaments Grill Work Pediment
Gable Stickwork
9. Dormer: Gable Gable with Overhand _�_ Other
10. Siding: Clapboard Shiplap 1.,� _ Shingle
Plaster or Stucco Brick Other
1.1 . Window Shape: Rectangular _JV—�- Semicircular Top Round
Oval Gothic Carved Bay
12. Window Surrounding Details:
(a) Top: Plain Victorian Trim Shelf
Molded. Other
(b) Sides: Plain �_ Molded Other
1
/00'
13. Window Opening: Double Hung V Casement Fixed
Other
14. Other Window Details: Quarterfoile Stained Glass
Queen Anne Mullions Other
15. Doorway Location: Center Off Center:'V
lb. Doorway Opening Shape: Flat Other
17. Doorway Type:
18. Door Glazing: Glass Etched or Frosted
Stained Beveled,
19. Door Surrounding Detail:
Top: Plain Molding Victorian Trim Molded Trim
Shelf Other
Sides: Plain Molded Trim Other
20. Porch: Stoop Open-1� Closed Other
21. Additional Features: Chimney Tower or Turret
Decorated Pediment Other
22. Ornamentation (Specify Location): Spindle & Spool Gable Ornaments
Stickwork Fishscaling I Other
23. Architectural Style(s): List predominant style and, if applicable, secondary styles
�czs C CeS 0 �Q.c�c (CL-SCA ZJ�
24. Describe the present physical appearance of the structure in standard architectural
terms.
. �sT 3/44 d4
i
D-Zrc'(" 1S b 4"-A co i" —kt
n_�,r c.�. o c�• lS -,n I ;,.. S`-�ci.-..a.9 i c,orc� 14,1 A f cc..•. �Tc v►,._
Si �r a� 71.c_ clr, �
Ih t (a.. Si
ru`�t s i m jc6—C_c �,JuS
( (, an Ps�
I
OCity of San LOS Obispo
,,-�Reference No. __ Name
" Photo No. NPhone - :.... . _.:. ...._ ...--�
Direction Date L
Parcel No. �� -� �1 l] -�(J Time Spent
Evaluation Score o
F1 t, MNo Reviewed by
O Evaluated by
Location rtap
AF;Q IIT'ECTIJRAL 1�RI�I lEI'f
1 . Address _� o s. �i'n l 5 YnC
2. Building Shape: Rectangular J/ L-Shape Other
3. Stories: 1 2 3 Other
4. Roof Shape: Gable Hipped._ Flat Gambrel
False Front Bell Cast Hipped Other
5. Roof Pitch: Low Medium ) High Flat
Red Tile
6. Roof Material : Tile Bui lttm Conwsitim_(Gravel)=
Wood Shingle Composition Shingle S� Other ___
(� 1. Eaves: Close Projecting None
8. Roof Trim: (a) Gable End: Projecting Roof Edge Cornice
Bargeboard Parapet Mission Style
Decorated
(b) Special Features: Cupola Finial
Gingerbread Widow's Walk. Pendant
Ornaments Grill Work Pediment
Gable Stickwork
9. Dormer: Gable. Gable with Overhand Other
10. Siding: Clapboard Shiplap Shingle
Plaster or Stucco Brick Other
11 . Window Shape: Rectangular _1,,--' Semicircular Top Round
Oval Gothic Carved Bay
12. Window Surrounding Details:
(a) Top: Plain Victorian Trim Shelf
Molded Other ��Yvu-cam
(b) Sides: Plain y,,," Molded Other
13. Window Opening: Double Hung �� Casement Fixed
'Other
14. Other Window-Details: Quarterfoile Stained Glass
_ . Queen Anne Mullions Other
15. Doorway Location: Center J�_ Off Center
16. Doorway Opening Shape: Flat Other
17. Doorway Type:
18. Door Glazing: Glass Etched or Frosted
Stained Beveled.
19. Door Surrounding Detail :
Top: Plain Molding Victorian Trim Molded Trim
Shelf Other
Sides: Plain �_ Molded Trim Other
20. Porch: Stoop Open Closed Other
21. Additional Features: Chimney ,i Tower or Turret
Decorated Pediment Other
22. Ornamentation (Specify Location): Spindle & Spool Gable Ornaments
Stickwork • Fishscaling Other
23. Architectural Style(s): List predominant style and, if applicable, secondary styles
I�
4 n Sa
24. Describe the present physical appearance of the structure in standard architectural
terms. `t1 s '(Du.Sltd i l;:6c" VLA c'� !2 ✓ g,4 f«cf CC—
'T71L-1 rout- r r
S 7 s rcA
LA-
A" I
s Ce la..
elf
ss-
Jr
��-f�
yr n
lv a
City of San Luis Obispo
Reference No. Name L` t'r
i
Photo No. Phone
Direction Date
Parcel No. 0 0� C a Time Spent
Evaluation Score 0 5 Reviewed by
Evaluated by _
Location Diap
AP.CI IITEG'f AL WORM=
1 : Address /U 3Sih.o
2. Building Shape: Rectangular /_ L-Shape Other
3. Stories: 1 1 2 3 Other
4. Roof Shape: Gable _J,--' Hipped Flat. Gambrel
False Front Bell Cast Hipped Other
5. Roof Pitch: Low Medium High Flat
Red Tile
6. Roof Material : Tile Builtiro Comositim-Mravell_
Wood Shingle _ Composition Shingle Other
C7. Eaves: Close Projecting ✓ None
8. Roof Trim: (a) .Gable End: Projecting Roof Edge L.-� Cornice
Bargeboard Parapet Mission Style
Decorated
(b) Special Features: Cupola Finial
Gingerbread Widow's Walk Pendant
Ornaments Grill Work Pediment
Gable Stickwork
9. Dormer: Gable Gable with Overhand Other
10. Siding: Clapboard Shiplap _L� Shingle
Plaster or Stucco Brick Other
11 . Window Shape: Rectangular t,,10'� Semicircular Top Round
Oval Gothic Carved Bay
12. Window Surrounding Details:
(a) Top: Plain le"� Victorian Trim Shelf
Molded Other
(b) Sides: Plain= Molded - Other
1
13. Window Opening: Double Hung ✓ Casement Fixed
Other
14. Other Window Details: Quarterfoile Stained Glass -
Queen Anne Mullions Other
15. Doorway Location: Center _ Off Center
16. Doorway Opening Shape: Flat ✓ Other
17. Doorway Type:
18. Door Glazing: Glass _J� Etched or Frosted
Stained Beveled.
19. Door Surrounding Detail :
Top: Plain Molding Victorian Trim Molded Trim
Shelf Other
Sides: Plain Molded Trim Other .
20. Porch: Stoop Open Closed Other
21. Additional Features: Chimney Tower or Turret
Decorated Pediment Other
22. Ornamentation (Specify Location): Spindle 8 Spool Gable Ornaments
Stickwork Fishscaling Other
23. Architectural Style(s): List predominant style and, if applicable, secondary styles
✓�N
24. Describe the present physical appearance of the structure in standard architectural
terms. , 5 ) 5 C yI S rook S Y1..
c
r -
lS C.
LkI I ` lk U Acmdee
AA AQ V o Al
e mod
l
� `� -
wnAt aniffC4 LCLI
o.re: b.orL4.C-d SPE°`"^, wlooc� vrold,v%;�- OY\A. a ,
I
Y
City O� san tuts OBisp0
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.
PROJECT OEESCRIPTION
v�
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
74 NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
—EXPANDED IN STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO REQUIRED
PREPARED BY n DATE
DATE 11-16'88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION:
Negative Declaration with Mitigation Included
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
O L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS...................................................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH............................................
C. LAND USE ......................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .._............................._............
E PUBLIC SERVICES ......... ............................._.............
F. UTILITIES....._..................................._................._............,.
G. NOISE LEVELS .... ..._...............................I...........
H. GEOLOGIC d SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ._..........._......
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............._...............................
K PLANT LIFE ......................................................
LANIMAL LIFE.................................._............................._.....
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL..............................................,.....
N. AESTHETIC .......................
e�
O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE •.............................
P. OTHER ................................................................:.............
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT sees
Initial Study ER 55-88
Grace Church Addition
1350 Osos Street
I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting
The applicant proposes to demolish three wood frame houses and construct a 28,000
square-foot addition to an existing 19,000 square-foot church building. The existing
church building is legally nonconforming because it does not meet current requirements
for setbacks and parking. The project also includes extension of water mains, fire
hydrants, and standpipe connections to provide adequate fire flows; and use of various
existing off-site parking facilities to meet minimum requirements of the Zoning
Regulations.
Processing of the project includes review by the following city bodies.
-Cultural Heritage Committee. Makes recommendation to Architectural Review
Commission regarding consistency of new design with historic character of
neighborhood, and regarding significance of houses to be demolished.
-Architectural Review Commission. Decides whether to allow demolition of houses, and 1
whether to approve design of addition.
-Planning Commission. Decides whether to approve use permit allowing addition to a
nonconforming building, allowing 71% lot coverage in a zone where 50% is the normal
maximum, allowing use of off-site parking, and determining whether the proposed
expansion of the church use is compatible with other neighborhood uses.
-Community Development Director. Decides whether to approve combination of various
underlying lots.
The project must be approved by the Director, ARC and Planning Commission (or by the City
Council acting on appeal) in order to proceed.
The site consists of six lots of record comprising a 32,900 square-foot rectangle with a
245-foot frontage on Pismo Street and 160-foot frontage on Osos Street. The existing
church building and three houses(one of which includes a detached building which may
have been occupied as a fourth residence) currently occupy the site. The houses are
apparently been used by the church as Sunday school classrooms.
Approximately six mature trees are located in the construction area, several of which are
to be removed. The site is subject to flooding to a depth of two feet or less during
100-year design storm conditions.
The site is surrounded by various offices and residential uses. A city park is located
southeast of the site across Pismo Street, and a convenience market is located at the _
south corner of the Osos/Pismo intersection. 1
II. Potential Impact Review
C. Land Use
The project will not displace existing uses; some education functions of the church may
be consolidated from other small properties in the vicinity to the project site. The
project may intensify the church's use of the site somewhat, but it is impossible to
predict accurately whether the project will increase the number of users or frequency of
use by the church.
It seems unlikely that church activities in the new building will increase conflicts with
nearby commercial or office uses. Eleven residential units will remain on the block, all
within 200 feet of the addition. Noise generated by activities in the new building may
affect tenants in those units, depending on the time of the activities, whether windows
are open, etc.
Significance: Typical hours of church activities are likely to be such that.noise would
be a minor nuisance rather than a significant adverse impact. Enforcement of city
Anti-noise Regulations will also serve as a practical means to limit nuisances which may
occur.
Mitigation: None needed.
F. Utilities
Existing water mains in the neighborhood are inadequate to provide the amount of water
O flow needed to meet ordinance requirements for fighting a fire in the proposed
structure. (Fire flows are also inadequate for fighting fires in the existingstructure
and many others in the blocks surrounding the project site.)
As part of the project description, the applicant proposes to extend a ten inch diameter
city water main to the site from the Marsh/Osos intersection and install new fire
hydrants. City funding may or may not become available to pay a portion of the waterline
costs.
The city has adopted regulations to control increases in water use due to development,
and in order to help correct the current imbalance between water use and supply. The
regulations limit issuance of building permits and are expected to mitigate water-use
impacts.
Significance: If uncorrected, lack of fire flow would constitute a significant impact.
Mitigation: Waterline extension and hydrant installation are already included in project
description; no further mitigation required.
J. Surface Water Flow and Quality
The site is subject to flooding during 100-year design storm conditions. Local and
Federal regulations require that structures be flood-proofed to a level one foot higher
than the flood level, and that floodwaters not be displaced in a way that increases
hazards to other properties.
The applicant has submitted calculations, verified by city staff, which indicate that the
project will not result in measurable increase in flood levels on other properties.
Floodproofing can be accomplished using generally accepted methods. A masonry wall
surrounding the basement's light well and use of individual flood gates at ground level
doorways will meet ordinance requirements and provide adequate protection.
Significance: Flood hazard to the building would constitute a significant adverse impact
if not mitigated.
Mitigation: Flood proofing measures routinely required by city regulations will mitigate
flood hazard impacts.
K. Plant Life
Several mature trees are to be removed from the site. None of the trees is an unusual
specimen, and numerous other mature trees will remain on the site and on adjoining fully
developed lots. Over the long term, trees to be planted in conjunction with the project
will provide more tree canopy than would the existing trees.
Refer to the 1977 General Plan EIR for additional discussion of the cumulative impacts of
development on the number of trees and volume of tree mass citywide.
Significance: No significant impact.
Mitigation: None required.
Ni Archaeological/Historical
None of the existing buildings - including the church - is considered to have unusual
historic significance on its own merit. However, all of the buildings are designated as
contributing to the overall historic character of the neighborhood, which includes many
structures built in the late I800's and early 1900's. Some of the structures in
adjoining blocks are listed on the National Register or may be eligible for such a
listing. .
The city's Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed this project on November 3, 1988. In the
judgement of the committee, the project is inconsistent with the historic character of
the neighborhood for several reasons: the site and building would be much larger than is
typical in the district; the street setback area would be much less than is typical; and
the architectural detailing and fenestration of the addition are not compatible with the
existing structure. Planning staff concurs with the CHC's evaluation of consistency.
Significance: A project of this scale which is inconsistent with important factors which
affect the neighborhood character would have a significant adverse effect on the historic
and aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.
Mitigation: City development review regulations require the ARC and Planning Commission
to review the project's consistency with neighborhood character, and make specific
affirmative findings before approving the project's design. The review process is thus
likely to provide some mitigation of historic and aesthetic impacts, although mitigation
may result in substantial revisions to the project's site plan and building design.
The project description should be modified to include agreement by the applicant to
modify the project design to ensure compatibility with the existing historic and
aesthetic character of the neighborhood as determined to be necessary by the ARC and
Planning Commission.
CN. Aesthetic
See Section M above.
III. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that a mitigated negative declaration be approved for the project,
subject to modification of the project description as noted in Section II.M.
gts3:graceer
�•3a
CLd'
ction by Lead Person ME' IG AGENDA
. DATE �e z, se ITEM #
.c ra�e..�'
February 16 , 1989
Grace Church
Pismo & Osos St .
San Luis Obispo , CA 93406
City Council
San Luis Obispo , CA 93406
Dear Members :
We would appreciate very much your approval of Grace Church' s
new building plans .
We , as seniors of Grace Church , need the room and freedom to
meet that the new plans offer to us .
Thank you for this consideration .
Sincerely ,
Erma Masten , Secretary
The Active Retired (TAR)
of Grace Church
1234 Atascadero Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
IRXCEIVED
FEB 211989
OrVC AIA
SANluK_!wt-M C�
10 :30
0 Mk ING AGENDA
DATE mm-m- ITEM #
?Denotes action by Lead Person
Re
spond b :
.February 21 . 1989 r
Dear Mayor Dunin and San Luis Obispo City Council .
We are writing in support of Grace Church 's building
program which you are currently considering .
We strongly believe the integrity of the community will
be enhanced by the proposed facility . We believe in this
Community and in Grace Church . We appreciate your support
for thi.s worthwhile project .
Sincerely ,
Donny tial 1 iere/
Stephanie Vailiere
RECEIVED• .
FEB 2 A 1989
CiTyCLEW
gMLU1S0qV0.CA
/1'000424,- .
OCIVES
MEETING AOL_iVUfi
1Rez;Wnd by.
DATE __ ITEIM: - ,o
�:.
c�Is r.=y
DRAFT PC MINUTES
January 11, 1989F�
� rr.
04 7-At I
3. Use Permit U1409. Request to allow a major addition to an existing non-conforming
church building; to allow 72% lot coverage where 50% is usually required; to allow
reduced street yard setback from 20-feet to 10-feet for a structure; and to allow
off-site parking at 889 Marsh Street; R-2 zone; Grace Church, applicant.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending denial of the use
permit subject to findings noted in the staff report.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing open.
Greg Wilhelm, 987 Osos Street, representative, indicated the addition would consolidate
the church's activities that operate on five separate parcels over a two-block area. He
introduced Rick Howe from Grace Church to the commission.
Rick Howe presented a slide show which captured the spirit of the church community.
Mr. Wilhelm reviewed the history of the church. He questioned whether the 50% percent
coverage provided by the R-2 zone is appropriate for the site plan based on its location,
use, and available open space. He noted that the church property is bounded by four
different zones, each with its own coverage requirements. He indicated the proposed
consolidation would only increase coverage by 2%. He noted that while the church fails
to meet the total parking requirements based on sanctuary seating, the church has never
had a lack of available parking because of the church's limited schedule of peak use and
its location to the downtown.
Mr. Wilhelm reviewed the proposed project and indicated the proposed design concept
consisted of a two-story mission-tile building that would be primarily residential in
character. He noted the church hoped to consolidate both church properties and
activities. He noted the church presently owns six buildings on six different
properties, requiring patrons to circulate over a two-block area and crossing Osos
Street. The proposed plan would eliminate and internalize much of the unnecessary
circulation. The neighborhood would be enhanced by the proposed design. He urged the
commission to approve the project.
Mr. Wilhelm responded to questions from the commission. He indicated it was the church's
intention to either demolish or move the three adjacent residences to the church and sell
the two properties across the street. He noted that after accommodating its present
needs, the church would consider developing a sister church on another site in the
future. He noted that all existing trees have been reviewed and marked by staff and all
trees would be retained on site except one located in the courtyard. He reviewed the
parking agreement with the San Luis Medical Clinic and the informal agreement with the
Post Office and noted that the church has taken considerable effort to obtain parking
agreements and comes within three or four spaces of the parking requirement. He felt
that with all the on-street parking available in the arca, parking was not a problem.
RECEINEE)
FEB 171989
CITY CLERK
S4ALUIS(W9 M C
DRAFT P.C. MINUTES
January Il, 1989
Page 2
Matt Copeland, 1103 Johnson, favored the expansion of the church, feeling it was an
improvement and enhancement to the community. He felt a denial of the project would not
change the practical aspects of the church's function. He noted the three houses
proposed to be demolished are not functional for the church's use. He felt it made sense
to consolidate the church's activities to alleviate the problem of patrons crossing the
busy street.
Rick Ernstrom, 1218 Woodside Drive, noted that the church was asking to consolidate its
educational facilities onto one side of the street and that the size of sanctuary would
not change so it should not have an affect on parking. He noted the parking agreement
with San Luis Medical Clinic runs for twenty years and renewable thereafter on a
year-to-year basis so long as the clinic still exists.
Bob Davis, 1855 San Luis Drive, noted that consideration had been given to purchasing
property in the area for parking but was rejected because it was too expensive and not
vcr_v cost-effective. He noted safety was one of the main considerations in consolidating
the church's facilities to one side of the street. He felt the plan was designed to
accommodate the existing activities of the church but would not alter the normal pattern
of activities on the site.
Bob Marshall, 785 DO Rio, reiterated the addition was planned for a consolidation of
services and a more realistic usage of square footage. He felt the project was sensitive
to the transition of the neighborhood. He felt keeping Grace Church at this location
would continue the neighborhood's historic and cultural heritage.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed.
Chairperson Kourakis favored the proposal, feeling it was important to keep churches in
the downtown area. She was concerned with parking and pedestrian safety and felt it was
a good idea to consolidate all services on one site. She felt questions of massing and
architectural compatibility could be dealt with by the Architectural Review Commission.
.Commr. Roalman commended the applicant on the presentation but could not support the
proposal. He felt the main issue was zoning and the request was more than he could
accept. He moved to deny Use Permit U1409 subject to the following findings:
1. The requested exceptions to setback and coverage standards would result in a pattern
of building masses and open space on the site which is incompatible with the existing
and desired pattern for the neighborhood.
2. The proposed project would result in the demolition of structures which contribute to
the historic character of the Old Town Historical Preservation District, and in their
replacement by a structure which is out-=of-character and scale with the historic
nature of the district.
3. The project would remain significantly deficient with regard to provision of
off-street parking which meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations and the
major expansion of the structure is not justified in view of the non-conforming
parking situation.
. o
DRAFT P.C. MINUTES
January 11, 1989
Page 3
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion, Resolution No. 4073-89. He was concerned with the
effect of the large building extending up Pismo Street to the residential area. He felt
that area was the heart of the Old Town Community and felt the proposed Pismo Street
facade would negate the neighborhood character. He felt the project could be broken up
in such a way to retain the characteristics of the area.
Commr. Gercty questioned whether Grace Church had outgrown the site and whether it was
time to consider adding a sister church in another location. He was not opposed to this
type of development occurring but was concerned that by adding an additional 23,000
square feet would to the site may result in an increase in the congregation which would
result in more crowding on the site. He supported the motion feeling there were too many
problems associated with this project.
Commr. Crotser felt the site plan was very sensitive but the setbacks on the northerly
property line should respect the residential setbacks and massing of an R-2 zone. His
main concern was with parking but felt there was sufficient parking because of offices
and commercial uses in the area. He could support the project but felt there was a way
to guarantee a 50% to 60% of the required parking.
Commr. Ducrk had a problem with the 72% coverage and felt it could be pulled back to
reduce the massing problem. She would prefer the addition to be much more residential in
character. She felt parking was a concern over the long term and felt the parking
solution did not seem stable enough to insure parking for a long period of time.
Commr. Schmidt felt there was a potential for doing something on the site that would work
both for the city and the church.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Schmidt, Roalman, Ducrk, Gerety, Hainlinc
NOES: Commrs. Kourakis, Crotscr
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
January 30, 1989
7. ARC 88-153: 1350 Osos Street; major addition to Grace Church; R-2 zone; conceptual
review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission
forward comments on conceptual issues to the City Council.
Greg Wilhelm, representative, responded to the staff report, and presented a_ slide show
which captured the spirit of the church community.
Mr. & Mrs. Earvin, 1042 Pismo Street, supported the project but were concerned with
transients in the existing houses and lots.
Commr. Starr appreciated the slide presentation and preferred to see the proposed project
than a parking lot on the same.site. He felt the scale of the project was acceptable and
that the proposed building forms had a better transition than the existing. He wanted to
sec landscaping in the frontyard rather than the courtyard.
Commr. Gates liked the design but felt a better transition to the residential scale would
be desirable. She would prefer the structure to be broken into three masses rather than
one and concurred with Commr. Starr about the front yard landscaping. She wanted the
existing Maorish detailing incorporated into the addition and elimination of the zioyurat
stairs.
Commr. Bradford agreed with recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and
thought the two-story mass was incompatible with the neighborhood. She felt there was
potential for other changes if this project were approved which would result in a
snowball effect. She thought the height difference to the existing houses was an
important drawback and that parking on-site was undesirable.
Commr. Morris felt the historic area of this location must be preserved. He thought
proposed materials could relate more to the existing building. He felt the plans should
be revised to read as three separate buildings on Pismo Street to achieve residential
openness.
Commr. Jones felt the neighborhood character was being lost on other projects in the arca
and Grace Church could set the tone for future character. He felt the addition could be
handled similar to the area near Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara. He wanted the facade
broken up with the use of color. He noted a potential security concern with the front
courtyard unless it were lighted. He wanted the addition made more residential and
thought demolition of the existing houses might be appropriate.
Commr. Cooper felt there were two levels and scale and that Mitchell Park might mitigate
the building mass. He thought the church could be the focal point as viewed from the
park. He suggested relocating the gymnasium adjacent to the office, with one-story only
adjacent to the residences and three-stories elsewhere. He wanted to see more openings
to the courtyard to break up the building mass and an increase in the use of building
detailing. He hoped the applicant would find a way to relocate the existing houses
proposed to be demolished.
® RALPH i KUHLfR
1900 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo. Coli(ornio 93401
805543-7387
February 14, 1989 -ETf'\'C hU'-NDA�
DA I C 02l 8`� IT�;tq
The Honorable Ron Dunin
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you as a Grace Church member of 45 years
concerning the consolidation of our facilities.
Our young people put their lives in jeopardy as they do
not use the crosswalk on Osos Street as they have been
asked to do, but dash across Osos Street in the middle
of the block on their way to the campus house or the
high school house. Sometime there will be a casuality.
Not only would this activity be eliminated, but the new
structure would be an enhancement to our downtown area
and serve our membership in a more functional manner.
Thank you for a favorable consideration of our request.
Ver, truly yours,
Ralph L. Kuhler "` ° Leen Person.!
✓. ' ., . I RECEIVED
,j �u�TARi FEB 1 71989
OTYCLERK
1 SAN LU1Sr)9ocnp CA
0 ,IEE i iNG AGENDA
` #Catrof05 cction by Less Fe ton DATE a *I ITEM #
kespiOid nY
ecound
L?CAO
2t4Atly. 1 ` 43 Bishop St .
IdcW*-0N- S a n Luis Obispo , C a
f ,m(aKecIL Feb . 14 , 1989
o'T
a- F-.Ce
Dear Mayor Dunin and SLO City Council Members :
My wife arrived at Grac.,-, Church in 1930 . That was when the
Monday Club was rented for service facilities . I arrived in
1943 at Camp S . L .O . just one year after Grace Tabernacle
(which it was then called then ) sanctuary was dedicated . We
were married there in 1945 .
We have seen a gradual growth through the years , but like the
population of S . L .O . , has increased tremendously over the past
10 years , Grace Church has increased considerably - mainly die
to city population rather than outreach efforts .
As we see our streets having to be widened , sewer and water
expanded , out of necessity we at Grace Church are facing ex-
pansion necessity to take care of enlarqe consistency , es-
pecially of young families .
My wife and I have commeni.ed to one another that "guardian angels
must be traffic cops at Osos and Pismo Sts on Sundays and on
Wednesdays , becuase of youth activities , nursery and classes
on opposite sides of the street from the church . No one has
gotten injured or pedestrian auto accident yet with all this
crossing to facilites - in all this time that has to us been
a miracle . The law of averages would defy such a record ! ! !
So one of our great concerns for getting the expansion underway
is to element the traffic danger to all these little children
and families . Another factor is that we have no gym and re-
creation area to take care of our Jr . High and High School young
people , because the limited gymnasium is occupied with
a large Awana Club program for younger children . We just have
no adequate place to carry on sufficient family church programs ,
demanded of a church that should be even reaching out more to
minister to this growing community .
We really appreciate the council ' s serious evaluation of the
facts and situation presented of the dire need of the proposed
plan of expanding the facilities to the North side of Osos St .
Sincerely ,
Ed and Marianne Bulkley
RECEIVE@
FE0151 9
OTYCLERK