Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1989, 4 - TRACT 1833: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE SIX AIR-SPACE OFFICE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND O J 2FA! city of sal LUIS OBlspo _ "' '"' M COUNCIL AGENOA DEPORT PROM: Randall Rossi, Interim Community evelopment Director BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tract 1833: Consideration of a tentative map to create six air- space office condominium units and one common lot, on the southeast corner of Nipomo and Palm Streets. CAO RECOMMMMATION Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Situation The applicants want to demolish a 1,890-square-foot warehouse building, presently used for a non-conforming automobile repair business, and build an office building, housing office condominiums, on the corner of Nipomo and Palm Streets. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted final approval to the project design, contingent on approval of a street yard exception for a portion of t119 building on Palm Street, On October 16, 1989. The ARC approved the building design and site layout, but was concerned with the location of the trash enclosure, feeling it was too close to the adjacent residences, and wanted to see details of the fountain and other elements. The Planning Commission approved a use permit allowing the use, approved the streetyard exception (use permit A 114-89), and recommended approval of the tentative map on November S. 1989. That commission required that the persimmon tree at the rear of the property be saved, and both commissions preferred more separation between the parking and the adjacent residential parcel. The applicants are now seeking council approval of the tentative subdivision map to create office condominiums within the building. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The project, as proposed with required mitigation measures, is not expected to create any significant impacts on the environment. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECONKENDED ACTION If the council denies the request, the project may still be built, but may not be divided into separate office condominiums. If the council continues the request, the deadline for action will pass and the subdivision will be deemed automatically approved (The Subdivision Map Act requires action by the council within thirty days of Planning Commission action.) . c CltY Of san , 1S owpo 6ftZiCOUNCILAGENOA REPORT Tract 1833 Page 2 Data summary Addressi 960 Nipomo Street Applicant/property owner: Nipomo Palms Partnership (Terry Simons and Joe Silvaggio) Zoning: O-H General plan: Office Environmental status: Negative declaration with mitigation granted October 11, 1989 Project action deadline: December 8, 1989 Site description The site is currently occupied by a 1,890-square-foot metal building used for anon-conforming automobile repair business. This building would be demolished to allow the spanish-style office building and parking lot to be'built. The site is bordered by houses on the east and southwest sides, and by a mortuary and the Mission High School athletic field to the west and north across Nipomo and Palm Streets. Prosect description The applicant wants to build a two-story, 4895=square-foot office building on the corner of Nipomo and Palm Streets. The proposed office building would cover about 28% of the site, with the remainder developed in parking, landscaping, and walkways. EVALUATION Staff suggests the council look at: 1. The use. Because of concerns with neighborhood compatibility in areas where offices are adjacent to residential areas, the council recently amended the zoning regulations to require a use permit for non-residential uses in the office zone. The Planning Commission was able to make the three required findings for this use, although there was concern about the extent of landscaping at the rear of the parking lot (discussed further below) . The commission therefore approved the use permit. 2. Condominium standards. The owners want to create airspace condominiums so they can sell the individual office spaces. Apparently there is a demand for commercial condominiums 'greater than in previous years, because many businesses cannot afford to build and occupy an entire office building, and these businesses want to build equity for the future. The city has regulations for condominium development. However, the _ regulations are for residential condominiums only. No specific standards are set for commercial condominiums. Approving a commercial condominium T-OL a4!Acity Or Sal: LUIS OBISPO ` Ma 11 - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1833 Page 3 map simply amounts to approving a division of ownership. No physical changes will result from approval of the tentative map. For office condominiums, the only issue the staff sees is maintenance of the grounds and building. We recommend that if the map is approved, a condition be placed on it requiring a property owners' association to maintain the site. This condition has traditionally been placed on commercial condominiums and appears to be adequate to address this concern. The Planning Commission concurs. 3. Streetvard exceptions. One streetyard exception (on Palm Street) was requested and granted by the Planning Commission. The exception is for a twenty-foot-wide section of the building that extends five feet into the required Palm Street streetyard. A second exception may be required. The Architectural Review Commission required additional landscaping between the parking lot and the adjacent residential lot, leaving it up to the developer to fit it in. Widening the planter might require the parking spaces to be moved closer to the street, however, requiring a streety"d reduction for parking spaces. If an exception is necessary to meet the ARC requirement for additional landscaping, the applicants will have to apply for an administrative use- permit to allow it. If the council has concerns about such a reduction, this concern should be relayed to the applicant and staff. 4. Retention of a tree. The Planning Commission was concerned about the proposed removal of a persimmon tree located on the east side of the lot, and required its retention as a condition of the use permit. No action on this item is required of the council. 5. Parking structures.. The project sits on a portion of a site under consideration by the city for a public parking structure. Approval of the project will compromise the feasibility of the site for that structure, or preclude it entirely from consideration. If the council wants to keep the site available for a structure, it should direct staff to begin negotiations to acquire the site. 6. wall height exception. The council may note by reading the attached minutes that the Planning Commission discussed an eight-foot-high wall on the property line. The commission determined that they could not act on an exception for the wall height, that an administrative use permit would be required to allow it. Rather than apply for an exception, the applicants have chosen to lower the wall to six feet, which is allowed without any exceptions. PREVIOUS REVIEW The Community Development Director granted a negative declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, to the project on October 11, 1989. �-3 City of San l S OBISpo = COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT FPage 1833 The Architectural Review Commission granted final approval on October 16, 1989, with additional landscaping, a new fence, two upper windows recessed, a higher landscape berm, and relocation of the trash enclosure to be approved by staff, and a color palette, stucco coat texture, wrought-iron, canvas awning, wainscoting, and fountain details to return to the commission. Most of the changes required by that commission are reflected in the plans, but have not yet been reviewed by the ARC. The Planning Commission approved the use permit, allowing the use and allowing a streetyard exception, finding that usable open space is preserved, and with a condition that the persimmon tree be retained. That commission also recommended approval of the subdivision, with findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. The council may approve the tentative map, allowing the subdivision of the office building into commercial condominiums, with conditions as recommended or with modified conditions. This action will have an effect only on the ownership of the project, as the use and building design have been approved by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission. The building can be built with or without council approval of the map. 2. The council may deny the tentative map, if it makes findings for a denial. A denial of the subdivision will mean that the individual office spaces cannot be sold separately. 3. The council may continue consideration of the map, if the applicant agrees to a continuance. The deadline for action, according to state law, expires thirty days after Planning.Commission action, on December 8, 1989. 4. If the council prefers that the site be retained for a third parking structure, negotiations to acquire the property should begin as soon as possible. OTHER DEPARTMENT coNNENTS The Public works Department notes that mission-style sidewalks will be required, and that the driveway approach must maintain a three foot minimum distance from any utility pole, street light, fire hydrant, street tree or other street furniture. As for any building over 4,500 square feet in area, fire sprinklers will be required. No other department had concerns about this project. SII Am City Of Shc SUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1833 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map, with findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments vicinity map draft resolutions minutes of ARC & PC meetings - Not available at agenda close I . R _ 3 - y s ' V :Ov00i.�M] � o L • _ ■ \ , ate.°•, / '�I �� V ■ r� 0 4 o 00 R- 3 / LJ F � J e� r .. • L� PF MV, 40C ps 2 i , O• +a�y� _ 7O �� �•�� M � � rte• �� �* H •O� tt �ey�fetN � 1 allP.�f J _Cc IS _ / \ r" — C , NO RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1833 LOCATED AT 960 NIPOMO STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findinga That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 1833 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereof makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an Office with Historical overlay zone. 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration with mitigation. 6. The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the project and approves of the site layout. SECTION 2. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map for Tract 1833 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map for approval and recordation. 2. Subdivider shall provide individual water services for each unit. Meters shall be clustered at property frontage, to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. Subdivider shall extend individual gas and electrical services and metering for each unit, to the approval of affected utilities and the City Engineer. Resolution No. (1989 Series) Tract 1833 Page 2 4. Final map shall note a blanket easement over the common lot area, except under the structure, for underground public utilities serving the site, to the approval of the City Engineer and affected utility agencies. 5. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the regulation of all buildings and facilities. These CC&R's shall be approved by the Community Development Department and administered by a property owners' association. 6. There shall be no chane in city-regulated prior approval of the communiDevelopment Department.rovisions of the CC&R's without 7. The subdivider shall include the following provisions in the CC&R's for the tract: a. Property owners' association shall be created to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of common areas including, but not limited to, the driveway, parking lot, landscaping, sewer, utilities and building exteriors. b. The right shall be granted to the city to maintain common areas if the property owners' association fails to do so and to assess said association for expenses incurred. C. All Parking spaces provided in the project shall be available for use by all of the individual owners. 8. A qualified archaeologist shall be present at the site during grading operations. If grading or other operations unearth archeological resources, construction activities shall cease, to allow the archeologist to record the extent and location of the discovered materials. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. Costs of any archeological work shall be the applicants' responsibility. 9. The applicants shall have a site assessment performed by a qualified environmental or soils engineering consultant. If the soil is determined to be contaminated, the property owner will be required to remove the contamination, to the approval of the city's Hazardous Waste Inspector. 10. Prior to occupancy, the City Engineer must be supplied with written certification by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer that the lowest floor elevation or floodproofed elevation complies with the Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. ��a Resolution No. (1989 Series) Tract 1833 Page 3 On motion of . seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A ministr e Officer , orn y Community Development Director y- 9 RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 1833 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO AND PALM STREETS BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request TR 1833, and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the subdivision is inconsistent with the general plan. SECTION 2. The request for approval of the subdivision request TR 1833 is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989. Resolution No. (1989 Series) Tract 1833 Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer 1#ttrn Community Development Director JL:resnip.wp ���� *NSE IG AGENDA ��III�II III DATE 9 ITEM # II IIIIIIII I I i�������I�I pllll III I I�� City Of San hils OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 Down eciion by Lead Permn December 12, 1989 Respond by: RECEIVED C�Councll MEMORANDUM ° DEC1 2 1989 :Ply Atty. :aid P To: City Council -0n9. ��,�o6b/ CIN CLERK a� r j', SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA From: JohnDunn ry FjLx' Subject: Ken wa ' letter on Nipomo/Palm Development Downtown Planning 1: We agree completely with Mr. Schwartz that the City needs an updated plan for the downtown, and this has been an important sub-part of our General Plan Revision process. 2 . As the Council is aware, the City even went further than this, adding a concept physical plan to the downtown planning program, under the City Council Work Program portion of the budget. C3 . His general point is that the City can't engage in the most intelligent short-term decision making, unless we know where we want to go in the longer term. we completely agree. Downtown Parking 1. The Council's policy document is the adopted Parking Management Plan. 2 . This plan says that the Palm Street structure and the Marsh- Chorro structure are to be followed by a parking property acquisition in the Higuera-Nipomo area. 3 . Since the adoption of the Parking Management Plan the City has considered and given preliminary approval to the Court Street project, and one of the conditions of approval relates to the need to develop further parking in the vicinity of Court Street. 4 . The staff has been studying these two issues and is in the process of preparing a report and recommendation on how the City should proceed on the Downtown Parking Program. We have also been working with the BIA Parking Committee, and will need to work further with them, and with the City Parking Management Committee and the Planning Commission on these issues. I 5. Regarding a parking lot (and future structure) in the vicinity of Higuera and Nipomo, staff has looked at a number of sites, including the site of this agenda item. At this point I"d say that this area is not leading candidate for a parking structure site for three primary reasons: A. There is already an approved development application on this site, with tonight's agenda item being to allow office condominiums for the previously approved development. B. This site is in an area that is largely residential, contains some historical buildings, and is near Mission School which, while not insurmountable problems, are issues which would have to be dealt with. C. This site would make most sense for a parking structure if Palm Street were to be a major traffic carrier or a downtown peripheral arterial in the future. In our City discussion on the future of the civic center area, there --- has been the express desire to keep Palm Street more sympathetic to a people-oriented civic center complex, more pedestrian- and less auto-oriented.. My conclusion is that the planning issue which Mr. Schwartz raises ( is appropriate, and we are working towards the goal he describes. v The parking issue he describes should be raised, and has been considered by the staff, but the staff is .not ready to recommend this site as a leading candidate for a parking structure in this portion of the downtown. JD:mp C. Mr. Ken Schwartz Community Development Director Public Works Director 9"4CVC1 " GAJ � Draft Planning Commission Minutes DEC 8 1989 MEETING AGENDA November 8 , 1989 DATE ITEM # CITY CLERK SAN LIMA CAISP0.CA 5. Public Hearing: Actions Relating to Property at 960 Nivomo Street. Requests to allow a new office building condominium; O-H zone; Nipomo Palms Partnership (Terry Simons & Joe Silvaggio) , applicants. A. Use Permit. A 114-89. Request to allow an office building and to allow reduced street yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. B. Tract No. 1833. Consideration of a tentative map creating a 6- unit air-space office condominium. Chairperson Duerk stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Vice- Chairperson Crotser took over as acting chair. Gary Price, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended the commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map and grant a streetyard exception. He noted allowing construction of an office on the site also required approval with additional findings suggested. Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the existing trees on the east property line not being noted on the site plan and with the city parking garage site selection process. Commr. Rourakis noted she had spoken with Mr. Simons. CCommr. Hoffman felt the development could be constructed within code and questioned the request for a reduced setback. Vice-Chairman Crotser opened the public hearing. Terry Simons, 891 Nipomo Street, applicant, discussed the project history and stated the reduced setback would enhance the entryway and be more aesthetically pleasing. He discussed the redesign of the trash enclosures. He stated the trees omitted on the site plan were 3 - 4 inches and below ordinance caliber requirements. He did not feel the persimmon tree was appropriate to the project and preferred to remove it, replacing it was palms and approved street tree choices. He questioned the need for a use permit for office development as this was an office zone. He discussed the parking garage site selection possibility and stated it seemed remote that this site would be chosen. He discussed on-.site parking and stated the 8 ft. wall was for neighbors' privacy. Comma. Schmidt was concerned about granting exceptions such as the fence height exception for aspects not advertised for public hearing. Staff noted that the wall height exception would need to be advertised and that findings would be needed to be made for approval. He also noted that the City Arborist recommended retention of the persimmon tree, the palms and the Brisbane box tree, as well as planting four palms as street trees. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission approved the project design without C' the persimmon tree and relocation of the trash enclosure. Mr. Simons was concerned about water entitlements. r. f 6?o r� d/ry,ArTy R.Res s( Joe Silvaggio, applicant, discussed the setback exception request and felt it would conform with other buildings on the street which had reduced setbacks. He discussed the back-up space in the parking lot and the exception request for landscaping allowance. Staff noted the wall height and parking lot exceptions could be handl ed administratively. Vice-Chairperson Crotser closed the public hearing. Commr. Schmidt stated he made a site visit and was against the setback request as he did not feel other reduced setbacks existed on Balm Street. He also noted this was a single piece of office zoned land in a residential area. Commrs. Karleskint and Hoffman felt the project was well presented and agreed with the setback reduction. Commr. Karleskint preferred to see landscaping and open space at the front of the building and wanted to retain the persimmon tree. Staff noted recommended findings to support the reduced setback. Vice-Chairperson Crotser felt the reduced setback as presented was acceptable as open space and that the tract map was acceptable. He preferred to see an actual drawing of the 8 foot wall. vice-Chairperson Crotser moved to approve the streetyard exception subject to the finding that it is usable open space and adding condition 1 regarding retaining the persimmon tree and approved the construction of the office and to recommend to the council that they approve the tentative tract map subject to finding and conditions. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion, Resolution No. 5001-89. AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Karleskint, Hoffman, Kourakis, Roalman NOES: Commr. Schmidt ABSENT: Commr. Duerk The motion passes. = RECEIVED MEETING `-J­ AGENDA DEC 8 19i y DATEl f ITEM # Draft ARC Minutes October 16, 1989 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 7. ARC 89-103: 960 Nipomo Street; new office condominium; O-H zone; schematic review. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending a continuance. Joe Silvaggio, applicant, responded to the staff report and indicated the building's footprint is the same as the previous project, however, it is now lower in scale. He displayed a model of the proposed project and asked for final approval contingent on Planning Commission approval of the setbacks. Terry Simons, representative, discussed the present building on the site. He took previous commission comments to develop the present project with the arches now made of brick and the wall next to the residences blank to prevent anyoverlook concerns. He noted that signing would be internal with only a building identification sign (Nipomo Palms) used on the building. He also noted that all metal would be of the same color. He discussed the use of waste wheelers and indicated he could increase the size of the trash enclosure to accommodate three wheelers. Catherine Elling, next door neighbor, supported the project. Commr. Morris had no problem with the project's neighborhood compatibility and supported both height and setback reductions. He was concerned with the bulk and mass of the building on the corner where the second-story has columns and suggested recessing the upper level and adding a balcony. He did like the Nipomo massing. He wanted to see more detail in the landscaping. He was concerned with possible sight distance problems at the corner. Commr. Bradford felt the solid facade at the comer needed an opening. She did not want the trash enclosure located by the residences. She noted a new fence was needed at the rear of the property. She supported the project, including the setbacks and height She thought a higher berm may be needed in the front. Commr. Gates thought the project was good looking and supported the setback. She felt the courtyard needed additional protection. She also felt the trash enclosure could be located in the parking area. She suggested shifting the parking forward to provide more landscaping at the rear of the property. She agreed the fence needed upgrading. She thought the proposed red color was a little harsh and would prefer to see blue or green used. Commr. Chatham agreed with previous comments. He felt the Nipomo elevation C needed some relief, however, in general, he felt the project was very attractive. He wanted to relocate the trash enclosure. He asked about proposed lighting. Joe Silvaggio indicated that lighting would wash on the building not on the neighbors. No large area lighting was proposed. Commr. Cooper agreed with previous comments. He thought the column colors could be lighter since the dark color would disappear into the glass. He was impressed with the innovative design and liked the combination of storefront with columns. He felt the base columns could be made fatter. He was concerned that the red rail would be too attention-getting. He wanted material changes, including the brick courses, to be carried around into the parking lot. Joe Silvaggio indicated that the texture of the stucco had not yet been chosen. Terry Simons indicated he would prefer not to recess the windows since then they would require railings. He felt glass should help with the massing of the building. He noted that the parking lot would have pepper trees which need room to grow. Commr. Gates moved to grant final approval to the project with landscaping along the rear property line, a new substantial fence, two upper windows recessed, a higher berm, and relocation of the trash enclosure to be approved by staff and another color palette, stucco coat, wrought-iron, canvas awning, wainscoting, and fountain details to return to the commission. CCommr. Bradford seconded the motion. AYES: Gates, Bradford, Chatham, Cooper NOES: Morris ABSENT: Jones, Starr The motion passes.