HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1990, 2 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY PLANS FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY BUILDING AT T �� �Illllll�p ��ji city of San_WIS OBISpo I * ^.___. 6
COUNT AL AGENDA REE .3RT 1TE°''NUMBER:
.21
FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner( '
SUBJECT. Appeal of Architectural Review Commisssiioon% action to deny plans for a
new four-story building at the east corner of Monterey and Toro Streets.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached draft resolution denying the appeal of the action of the
Architectural Review Commission to deny application ARC 90-14, a proposal to
construct a four-story office building with covered parking.
REPORT IN BRIEF.
The ARC denied the project, after trying at several meetings to work with the applicant
to come up with an appropriate design. The commission cited concerns with the project's
mass and scale of the building, and lack of pedestrian orientation, among other factors.
Staff concurs with the commission's determination.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The ARC granted schematic approval for this project on April 30, and continued it with
direction on June 18. The version of the design which was denied on July 16 responded
to some - but not all - of the commission's directions. Blueprints of the July 16 design
are enclosed in councR agenda packets.
An administrative use permit is also required for the project, since six of the 40 required
parking spaces are to be located off-site at 1131 Monterey Street.
Data Summary
Address: 1200 Monterey Street
Applicant: Radakovich, Shaw, and Company
Representative: SDG Architects
Zoning: C-R
General Plan: Retail Commercial
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by director and by ARC.
Project Action Deadline: September 20, 1990
ARC 90-14
Page 2
Site Description
9,035-square-foot site with 102' frontage on Monterey, 90' frontage on Toro. The site
has been extensively graded in the past. An existing retaining wall is located at the
northwesterly property line. The wall was apparently built in conjunction with an
automotive service building formerly located on the site. There is no significant
vegetation at the site, with the exception of several mature street trees.
The site is surrounded by various retail commercial, office, and residential uses.
Project Description
The project involves construction of a four-story building at the northerly comer of
Monterey and Toro Streets. Overall building height above grade would be approximately
41 feet as measured at Monterey Street, approximately 36 feet at the westerly comer
(on Toro Street), due to the slope of the site.
The first two levels would provide 31 covered parking spaces for tenant use, and the two
upper levels would provide 12,000 square feet of office space. The upper and lower
parking levels would have driveway access to Toro and Monterey Streets, respectively.
The lower parking level would be three to six feet lower than the level of Monterey
Street.
, i
EVALUATION
The basic form of the building is unchanged from the plans reviewed at the first ARC
hearing, when the project received schematic approval. A 250-square-foot retail shop has
been added on the ground level; the color scheme has been darkened; a parapet along
the east elevation has been reduced; a display window has been added at the Toro Street
frontage; and landscape materials and paving have been revised slightly..
Public testimony and commissioners' discussion focused on the following issues at the
ARC hearings:
1. Scale and Mass of Building
The ARC asked the applicant to modify the upper level of the building to reduce its
visual impact; commissioners suggested elimination of the loggia (covered balcony) facing
Monterey Street on the upper level as a starting point. Commissioners considered the
following factors in evaluating the appropriate scale for a building on the project site:
- Scale of existing buildings nearby.
- The cumulative visual effect of similar development on other Monterey Street
properties.
ARC 90-14
Page 3
_i
- Impact of the project on views. Views of hillsides surrounding the community
would be most affected for perhaps a half-dozen office and residential properties
surrounding the site, and some restriction of views will affect as many as two
dozen offices and residences. The extent of view blockage will be a function of
proximity to the new structure, finish floor elevation, and orientation of windows
and outdoor use areas.
- Height and coverage regulations. The C-R zone allows a maximum height of
45 feet, and 100% coverage. These limits establish an envelope within which any
building must be located, but do not establish the right to develop a building
which completely fills the envelope. The proposed project would have an average
height of 38 feet, and would cover 83% of the site.
2. Lack of Pedestrian Orientation
Commissioners noted concerns that the lower levels of the design do not have a
pedestrian scale, and suggested the project follow guidelines adopted for the downtown
core more closely. This could mean provision of more first floor office or retail space,
and better screening or elimination of street-level parking.
Particular attention was focused on the appearance of the parking levels at night.
Commissioners questioned whether the proposed wrought iron grill would provide
adequate screening of the illuminated interior.
3. Parking and Traffic
In addition to concerns with the visual impact of the two levels of parking, members of
the public and some commissioners questioned whether the project would contribute
significantly to traffic congestion and parking problems. Specific concerns were noted
regarding:
- Safety of pedestrians crossing the Monterey Street driveway.
- Increasing peak-hour congestion at the Monterey/Toro intersection.
- The desirability of requiring on-site parking in this section of the downtown.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Several neighbors have testified in opposition to the project. Refer to the attached ARC
hearing minutes.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department staff notes that the developer will be required to extend a water
main and install a fire hydrant to mitigate fire flow deficiencies.
�3
ARC 90-14
Page 4
The project is designed to accommodate future widening of MontereyStreet. Although
no plan line has been formally adopted for the widening project, the uilding is set bak
six feet from the existing right-of-way line in accordance with the plan line
recommendation of the Engineering staff, and consistent with city actions on previous
projects in the Monterey Street corridor.
Engineering staff also notes that the site is subject to flooding; floodgates will be
required at entrances to habitable areas on the two lower levels. Floodgates are not
required for the parking area.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny the appeal. The applicant would have to submit a new application and revised
plans for ARC consideration.
Uphold the appeal. The council may grant final approval to the project as submitted,
or with minor modifications. Direction should be given to staff regarding any details
which are to be resolved after the council hearing.
Continuance. The council may continue consideration of the project, with direction to
staff and the applicant regarding additional information or project revisions which may
be needed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution denying the appeal of
the Architectural Review Commission's action to deny application ARC 90-14.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Appeal Letter
ARC Minutes: 4/30, 6/18, 7/16
gtsd:arc9014cc.wp
�y�
O
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION TO DENY APPLICATION ARC 90-14, A PROPOSAL TO BUILD
A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COVERED PARKING AT
1200 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public
hearing on Application ARC 90-14 on July 16, 1990, and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council;-
and
ouncil;and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
OReview Commission was appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and affirm
the action of the Architectural Review Commmoa, thereby denying Application ARC
90-14 subject to the following findings adopted by the Architectural Review Commission:
1. The proposed project is not in. scale with the neighborhood. The detailing,
scale and massing are not appropriate.
I The proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because it
is too high and will block views from adjacent properties.
3. The proposed project is not consistent with the Goals for Downtown because
it is notpedestrian oriented and the first floor is not retail commercial.
4. The proposed project would accommodate uses that require too much parking
to be on the site.
�-s
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-14
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 day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
2atyQOatWeOtffce
' o y
Community Dev op ent Director
1
ORESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECrURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION TO DENY APPLICATION ARC.90-14, A PROPOSAL TO BUILD
A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COVERED PARKING AT
1200 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public
hearing on Application ARC 90-14 on July 16, 1990, and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
O Review Commission was not appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and
approve application ARC 90=14 subject to the following findings :
1. The proposed project is in scale with the neighborhood. The detailing, scale
and massing are appropriate.
2. The proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with views from adjacent
properties.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Goals for Downtown because it is
not located within the downtown core area.
4. The proposed project does not include excessive parldng on the site.
O
u of-7
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-14
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 day of
. 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
l
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City ministrat' a Officer
o ey
Community Develo nt Director
w o
/;1 M.. v ,y
or
Doi *lb At
,lb
, e
x ��`� dJ► ,p its°� a ��� soev� •'
••
r.
° 'ted ��jl/t • ��rlyy�J
qo At
97
op
�1 -•�. �-• � ��d � YtWR ~ y S6
NOW
WN
i
a'° �rir�+' �'•• `��� �-�, Oar �'�v�t�
C ,
OT ` � � ..e er ��1t•R <
l��u`* `,�� O `• o� ti aZf
O
uetl � ,.�,�° � �• �pr�j
OW ESQ Q�O�Y
S P�' •' yep r�
37 3 i
Ls
`w
i
City orsAn luiS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 o San Luis Oblspo.CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title 1. Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from th decision of Pf ' r�--rLP-fid.. #Cql cj goWItIK61� rendered
on i' D which decision Consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
RECEIVED
JUL 1 91990
,,,,.0"CI lc
9"UPS 08(SPO.CA
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
JarJ1yJ01,� �itril, on
Appellant:
/.•f crN� b��rTES
Name/Title
Representative
644 510 934.01
Address
541- 346
Phone
Original for City Clerk
a
Copy to City Attorney
Cal nda ed for: 49 Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy o the following rpm tment(s)`-
1
City Clerk
A ,.
SDG
a r c h i t e c t u r e p l a n n i n g p u b i r c p o l i c y
July 19, 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Members "HAND DELIVERED"
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: Montoro Building, 1200 Monterey Street
Dear Councilpersons:
O On behalf of.Montoro Associates,we are submitting the attached plans and
application to appeal a decision of the Architectural Review Commission rendered
on July 16, 1990. The majority of the ARVs concerns centered around whether or
not a building of the proposed size is appropriate for this portion of Monterey Street
A second area of concern expressed by some of the commissioners was a desire to
clip back the roof eaves as a means of reducing the apparent mass of the building.
There is no question that a building similar to the one proposed will change the
character of this portion of Monterey. Such a change from the present mix of auto
repair and sales uses is desirable. The City has encouraged auto dealerships to
relocate away from this area and the rising land values make one and two story
buildings economically unfeasible. The importance of this area as a visual link
between the visitor serving uses on upper Monterey Street and the downtown area
also plays a role in determining an appropriate design character. Additionally, the
County's interest in future expansions of the Government Center may have a
dramatic impact on this area. Given the uncertainties surrounding the building site,
the ARC is divided on what the City's design goals are for this area, particularly with
respect to scale and intensity of development.
The proposed project is not a speculative office building. The Montoro partners
require the entire amount of space shown on the plans for use as their own offices.
This particular area of Monterey Street lies just outside the downtown core (CC
Zone). The requirement for on-site parking requires a considerably different design
approach than might be appropriate in the downtown core. The overall size of the
O proposed building stems from the City zoning requirement that all parking be
provided on or nearby the site. The site itself precludes the use of an auto ramp
inside the building, since the ramp itself would require more space than the parking
places it is designed to serve.
A13034 S -1- 1 ' 1) 1 U 1) 1": S I (i N G R 0 U 1'
F4! r':ounra Street Suite 200 San Lu,s 07rsoo Galdorma 93401 (805) 541-3848 �'L
Montoro Building
July 19, 1990 �\
Page 2
An important goal in the design of the proposed building has been to minimize the
appearance of the on-site parking. A series of deep, narrow openings are utilized to
effectively obscure passerby's view into their parking areas. A metal lattice provides
a screen over the openings similar to a window frame. Furthermore, the front of the
parked cars are recessed 10'-0" into the building from the Monterey Street elevation.
Many projects that have been recently approved by the ARC include dipped roof
eaves and no overhangs., The current use (or overuse) of this detail is popular with
many architects and was inspired by the post-modem movement. This style offers a
harsh roofiine with no solar protection. The ARC encourages this detail as an
attempt to reduce a building's apparent mass and scale. We feel the proliferation of
this style will date the building's design and in the future make it "typical of the late
1980's style'. In contrast to the recent trend, our preference is to use wide verandas,
porticos and overhangs which have a sheltering effect and soften the overall
appearance, not unlike the Santa Barbara Savings Building at Osos and Marsh
Streets.
The proposed building has been designed to conform with the City's specified
height limitations and no exceptions have been requested. Simply conforming with
the City's height and setback units is not an entitlement for the architect to design
whatever he or she may wish;but, if the height limitation_desired by the City for a
particular zone is 35' rather than 45' as stated in the ordinance, the zoning
ordinance should be revised to accurately reflect the desired height limitations. An
applicant may always request a variance for special conditions which may require
an exception.
The applicants and myself spent many hours exploring alternative designs for the
building. We feel the ARC contributed some excellent ideas in terms of landscaping,
building color, paving and pedestrian amenities. We still feel very strong, however,
that the proposed building form respects City zoning standards and offers the most
timeless and enduring design. As occupants of the building, the applicants have a
personal interest in the building's appearance and are more concerned with the
design aesthetics than the average commercial speculative builder. For this reason;
we respectfully request yourfinal approval of this project.
Respectfully,
STUDIO DESIGN GROUP
Brian Starr, Architect
Vice President
BSAg
Enclosures
A13 034
i •w
lAtt I 114LI I
Y-D
&adakox4ch-Shaw&v,-:o. DATE 2404 ITEM #
O ezdl�!eS=on by Lead Person
Pby.
August 3. 1990 RECEIVED
WCAO
Mike Itahkovick CPA
Atty, Edwin Show.CPA
1990
on
Mayor Ron Dunin wonk S ......
Post Office Box 8100 LUIS CA
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mayor Dunin;
We submitted plans to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a commercial of-
fice building to be constructed at 1200 Monterey. For reasons to be discussed later the
ARC denied the building. We are currently appealing that decision to the City Council.
Before being heard at the council meeting we would like to take this opportunity to point
out a few items we feel should be brought to your attention.
To
begin with, we would like to
emphasize
tha
twe
e
not
d!
evelopers looking to make a
'uck profit le 0e of best interests What we are attempting to
udip simply ah0 e forour b business. are office rents are escalating in San
is Obispo, particularly in the core d wntMbusinessdistrict. The proposed building is
our attempt to avert apotential moe from the Cityand it's climbing rents. Professionals
fleeing from down town cannot be in the
best interest of the City's
O economic health.
In addition,we feel the building is in keeping with the City's plans to upgrade the main cor-
ridor from the motel district to downtown. Va
We
are very proud of the project's design and
have gone out of our way to insure a plan that will greatly enhance the area. It is our un-
derstanding that the City's long range plan is to relocate the auto sales and related busi-
nesses from Monterey a factor we feel the ARC did not consider. They suggest that the
building may be years ahead of its time. To the contrary, this is not a ground breaking
project. The conversion of the Corda building from an auto dealership to a financial center
was the first step of many projects,such as ours, that will allow the City to realize it's vision
of a Monterey Corridor of which the community can be proud. Also, it is no secret that
County Government expansion could very likely mean hirge, multi-storied office in the
immediate,vicinity.
In keeping with the professional atmosphere desired for Monterey our project has a con-
cealed onsite parking structure. This design eliminates open, street level parking that de-
livers a "strip mail" look, reminiscent of a sprawling suburbia. This will give a more profes-
sional look to the corner.
Another consideration we would like you to take to heart is that we are asking for abso-
lutely no variances. All parameters and specifications are within current City zoning codes
for the property. The property was purchased with the naive notion and within a budget
that assumed We could build a project based on the zoning and height restrictions in effect
for the area. The ARC seems to be trying to mandate zoning by limiting the scope of a
building already within current paranieters. If it is the intention of the City to restrict the
tone ofn this area below current standards it is the prerogative of the City Coun-
Oc il I proM i not the C. to set this type of policy.
We respectfully request that you consider these points when you contemplate our appeal.
We feel that if you look at the proposal with the best interest of the community at heart you
tft- FJ;%
Mayor Ron Dunin
Re: Appeal of 1200 Monterey
August 3, 1990
Page 2
will agree that the building will bean addition to the City that not only we are proud of, but
so too our children.
Respectfully submitted
t'P�"rt�) SL4e 4 Co-.
Radakovich, Shaw& Co.
Certified Public Accountants
i
R, Jakovich•Shaw&Co.
O ARC Minutes
June 18, 1990
Page 5
AYES: Gates, Underwood, Bradford, Cooper, Phillips, Chatham
NOES: None
ABSENT: Morris
The motion passes.
Commr. Morris returned to the meeting.
3. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission continue the project with direction.
O Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and noted .the alternative
design and showed slides of the site and vicinity. He noted the extent of the C-R
zone and the future character of the neighborhood. He felt the roof overhang
enhances the scale of the building. He indicated that square footage requirements
affect the viability of the project and felt limiting the building to one or two stories
was not feasible. He was open to a trip reduction plan but felt parking reduction
programs should be community-wide and not limited to only one project. He
requested final approval.
Commr. Phillips indicated she had suggested a trip reduction plan in order to reduce
the parking requirement.
Mr. Starr noted that views, from Palm Street would not be affected by the height of
this building. He also noted that lighting would be minimized at night. He was
concerned with the effect of screening on ventilation requirements and appearance.
Denise Gingg felt the project was out-of--scale with the neighborhood and too big for
the lot. She noted existing traffic problems and felt the building would block the
view of traffic.
Linda Hampton concurred with Ms. Gingg.
Commr. Cooper felt the model helped to show the scale of the building. He
suggested eliminating the loggia, maintaining the eave overhang, and trip reduction:
lie liked the darker color_ He wanted the paving changed at the driveways. He felt
ARC Minutes
June 18, 1990
Page 6
Toro Street parking problems should be referred'to staff for resolution. He wanted
to see some decorative grill added at the sidewalk level.
Commr. Chatham indicated he would support retail at the lower level instead of
parking but felt parking inside the building would be acceptable. He supported the
"hybrid" with eaves.
Commr. Gates liked the project as presented. She noted the concerns of the
neighbors but felt this was a building corridor. She suggested varying the colors and
enlarging the retail.
Commr. Phillips concurred with previous comments on the colors. She felt she could
support a three-story building with parking reduction. She noted she could not
support final approval at this time due to the parking situation.
Commr. Underwood felt three stories would be preferable. He liked the colonnade
and indicated he could support a hybrid. He felt the colors had improved. -
Commr. Bradford felt this project would be viewed as a precedent for the future.
She felt two floors of parking with minimal screening would detract from the
pedestrian character of the neighborhood. She also preferred the building to have
three stories with an automobile entrance further from the corner.
Commr. Morris concurred that buildings of this scale would be built between Santa
Rosa Street and the railroad. He liked the hybrid solution with the second floor
softened with plantings and more retail added. He supported a parking reduction.
Commr. Cooper moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to add
more landscaping at the front and rear of the building, soften the appearance of the
second floor parking, combine aspects of alternate designs to eliminate the loggia and
retain the eaves, changes to paving materials, restudy night lighting, and encourage
parking reduction.
Commr. Chatham seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Chatham, Bradford, Underwood, Phillips, Gates, Morris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
AJ
O ARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 5
Findings
1. An exception to sip regulations to allow a 6 high monument sip where 5' is
normally allowed is warranted since it will allow improved tenant visibility who
would otherwise have reduced visibility due to the project's size and
orientation; and
2. . South Higuem Street is a medium-high speed arterial, making adequate sign
visibility difficult without thesign exception.
3. The Community Development Director's decision to grant a. mitigated negative
declaration is affirmed, subject to the inclusion into the project of the four
measures noted in the attached initial study.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Bradford, Gates, Morris, Underwood
NOES: Phillips
(�) ABSENT: Chatham
The motion passes.
4. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff repdrt and recommended the
commission continue the project with direction to revise the upper level design.
Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and noted that the
pedestrian. walks would be made of stamped concrete while the driveways would be
smooth concrete. He noted that a security roll-up gate at the entry would be closed
at night. He also notedthat his client preferred not to pursue the hybrid design.
Lucille Kimball, 970 Morro, opposed the project feeling it was too big.
Denise Gingg felt the project was too massive for the area and the view from her
house would be blocked except for the top part of the hills: She did not believe that
extensive office development would occur. She noted traffic problems in the area.
O
ARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 6
Ernest Gene concurred with Ms. Gingg regarding traffic.problems in the area. He
felt the office use would detract from the auto/retail uses in the area He was
concerned with lighting from the building.
Commr. Cooper suggested red curbing Toro Street to control commercial loading in
the street. He supported a 7 p.m. lighting curfew. He felt the building scale would
be acceptable if the loggia were added. He was concerned with the differentiation of
the pedestrian walkway and vehicle paving areas and suggested texturing the
pedestrian walk across the driveway. He .also suggested modifying the loggia at the
tower. He thought the landscaping and grill were acceptable but felt some
modifications to the project would be appropriate.
Commr. Phillips thought the building was too big and opposed the project. She felt
only two-stories at this location would be appropriate. She felt that lighting would be
needed for security reasons and was also concerned with traffic in the area She felt
it would be hard for a automobile to get on Monterey Street from the project site.
Commr. Gates suggested installing some sort of warning light for pedestrians that cars
were existing the driveway. She felt the massing was acceptable and might support
the project if the applicant incorporated Commr. Cooper's suggestions into the project
Commr. Underwood felt the building was too large but may be appropriate in five
years. He still favored the use of loggia and wanted to see the project redesigned.
Commr. Bradford appreciated that thoughtful design and presentation that was made
but felt two levels of parking was not appropriate or consistent with common plans
and goals. She felt there was too much proposed for the site and that the project
must be compatible with the neighborhood.
Commr. Morris felt that buildings of similar scale would eventually occur on Monterey
Street. He felt the site lighting could go off at 9:00 p.m. He preferred the concept
of the hybrid design.
Commr. Phillips moved to deny the project based on the following findings:
1. The proposed project is not in scale with the neighborhood. The detailing,
scale, and massing are not appropriate.
2. The proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because it is
too high and will block views from adjacent properties.
3. The proposed project is not consistent with the Goals for Downtown because it
is not pedestrian oriented and the first floor is not retail-commercial.
O ARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 7
4. The proposed project would accommodate uses that require too much parking
to be on site.
Commr. Bradford' seconded the motion.
AYES: Phillips, Bradford, Cooper, Underwood
NOES: Gates, Morris
ABSENT. Chatham
The motion passes.
5. ARC 9049: 423429 Sandercock Street; add 1-unit apartment to site with
existing duplex; R-2 zone; final approval.
OGreg Smith, Associate Planner, noted the applicant had called staff and requested a
continuance of this item to the commission's July 30th meeting since he would be out
of town.
Commr. Cooper moved to continue continuation of the project to the commission's
July 30th meeting.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Gates, Underwood, Bradford, Morris, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chatham
The motion passes.
MINUTES
On motion of Cohuhr. Underwood, seconded by Commr. Cooper, the minutes of June
18, 1990, were approved as written.
ARC Minutes .
April 30, 1990
Page 6
Commr. Underwood agreed with previous-comments. He also liked the roofline. He
felt parking was a problem, but otherwise supported the project.
Commr. Morris felt open space was a problem. He felt useable front yards could be
established with landscape materials.
Commr. Chatham moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to
restudy open space and circulation, relocate trash enclosures, add double-hung
windows, use wing walls, and show sidewalks.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Chatham, Cooper, Bradford, Underwood, Phillips, Gates, Morris
NOES: None
ABSENT. None
The motion passes.
5. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission grant schematic approval to the project and concur with the negative
declaration approved by the director.
Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and indicated the setback
was requested for a proposed street widening after discussion with the City Engineer.
He noted the design was of a streamlined Spanish style with an attempt to de-
emphasize the automobile entry. He noted that some views would be affected by the
building's height but felt that the site was in a depression and would not cause much
of an impact. He indicated low-level lighting was proposed as well as approximately
a 1/2-inch dimension wrought-iron screen at the parking area. He also indicated low-
key signage at the exterior entries was proposed. He noted that roll-up doors may be
used on the garage. He discussed the project's impact on street trees.
Denise Gingg was concerned the project would block views from her porch and
house. She also had security concerns with the homeless.
Ernest Gene felt there would be problems with parking and that the building was too
high. �I
ARC Minutes
April 309 1990
Page 7
Joe Diehl, applicant, planned to have a well-maintained building that would enhance
the neighborhood He noted off-site parking was proposed at Dean/Witter.
Commr. Cooper felt the code may be modified to eliminate parapets at sprinklered
buildings, but felt the parapet design was good, if it could not be eliminated He
thought the Toro elevation was bleak and suggested incorporating a display window
and/or public art for interest. He wanted the building to relate more strongly to the
street and to provide retail uses. He wanted to see lighting details. He indicated he
could support final approval.
Commr. Chatham felt eliminating the parapet would be good
Commr. Phillips felt the building was too massive for Monterey Street and that the
project needed human scale. She wanted to see parking management alternatives.
Commr. Underwood thought the project was attractive but too massive for the site.
He thought the abrupt transition would appear out-of-character with the
Oneighborhood. He felt three stories would be more acceptable than four.
Commr. Bradford felt there should be some application of downtown policies at this
location. She wanted the parking screened from the street. She wanted the garage
entry de-emphasized. She suggested setting back the upper stores and thought the
upper floor looked like a colonial "fortress." She wanted the pedestrian access
enhanced She agreed with Commr. Underwood that the building should be lowered
to three stories, adding first-floor pedestrian scale, and provide screening at the
southerly elevation. She questioned the what would happen with the setback if the
street wasn't widened.
Commr. Gates liked the project's design but felt the Toro Street elevation should be
restudied. She suggested stepping back the tower and using a darker building color.
Commr. Morris liked the proposed design but had some concerns with the building's
height. He felt that in the future, taller buildings would be proposed with street level
retail uses. He agreed deeper color tones should be used and the parking entry
should be on Toro Street only, if possible. He suggested using a Mediterranean plant
theme.
Commr. Cooper moved to concur with the negative declaration of environmental
impact and grant schematic approval with direction to reduce the visual mass of the
building, to restudy the facade details and colors, to add more landscape screening at
Othe front and back and enhance the pedestrian entry.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
Y
Y
ARC Minutes
April 30, 1990
Page 8
AYES: Cooper, Gates, Bradford, Chatham, Morris, Underwood
NOES: Phillips
ABSENT: None
The motion passes..
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Commrs. Cooper and Bradford asked staff to get the project at the comer of Broad
and Church Street finished immediately.
Commr. Gates asked staff to get the Marsh Street car wash into compliance with
ARC direction immediately.
The commission discussed the proposed medallions for the parking structures.
The commission discussed the downtown revitalization conference to be held in
Pasadena.
MINUTES
On motion of Commr. Bradford, seconded by Commr. Chatham, with Commr.
Underwood abstaining, the minutes of February 20, 1990, were approved as written.
On motion of Commr. Bradford, seconded by Commr. Cooper, the minutes of April 9,
1990, were approved as written.
The meeting adjourned at 9.55 p.m, to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission for May 14, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9)
of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Smith
Recording Secretary
NA,E ET 111' AGE.
I.-adakoNdch-Shaw&_�. DATE i42_1 RD ITEM #
acl.!cn by Lead Person
R3sn . by:
Scr
I�Vcll
August 3, 1990 RECEIVED .20 Mike PtAdakovidw,CPA
CC. A Edxin Shaw,CPA
iggo ,so ledk-o4 ...... P"%
V
;V�5 x1e94 rn P;a n
Mayor Ron Dunin
1 CA
Post Office Box 8100 a LUIMS4. FILE
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mayor Dunin;
We submitted plans to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a commercial of-
fice building to be constructed at 1200 Monterey. For reasons to be discussed later the
ARC denied the building. We are currently appealing that decision to the City Council.
Before being heard at the council meeting we would like to take this opportunity to point
out a few items we feel should be brought to your attention. -
To begin with, we would like to emphasize that we are not developers looking to make a
quick profit at the expense of the best interests of the City. What we are attempting to
build is simply a home for our business. As you are aware office rents are escalating in San
Luis Obispo, particularly in the core, downtown business district. The proposed building is
our attempt to avert a potential move from the City and it's climbing rents. Professionals
fleeing from down town to other county locals cannot be in the best interest of the City's
economic health.
In addition,we feel the building is in keeping with the City's plans to upgrade the main cor-
ridor from the motel district to downtown. We are very proud of the project's design and
have gone out of our way to insure a plan that will greatly enhance the area. It is our ull-
derstanding that the City's long range Ian is to relocate the auto sales and related busi-
nesses from Monterey, a factor we feelthe ARC did not consider. They suggest that the
building may be years ahead of its time. To the contrary, this is not a ground breaking
project. The conversion of the Corda building from an auto dealership to a financial center
was the first step of many projects, such as ours, that will allow the City to realize it's vision
of a Monterey Corridor of which the community can be proud. Also, it is no secret that
County Government expansion could very likely mean large, multi-storied office in the
immediate vicinity.
In keepingwith the professional atmosphere desired for Monterey our project has a con-
cealed onsite parking structure. This design eliminates open, street level parking that de-
livers a "strip mall" look, reminiscent of a sprawling suburbia. This will give a more profes-
sional look to the corner.
Another consideration we would like you to take to heart is that we are asking for abso-
lutely no variances. All parameters and specifications are within current City zoning codes
for the property. TheroTerty was purchased with the naive notion and within a budget
that assumed we could d a project based on the zoning and height restrictions in effect
for the area. The ARC seems to be trying to mandate zoning by limiting the scope of a
building already within current parameters. If it is the intention of the City to restrict the
tone of projects in this area below current standards it is the prerogative of the City Coun-
cil, not the ARC, to set this type of policy.
We respectfully request that you consider these points when you contemplate our appeal.
We feel that if you look at the proposal with the best interest of the community at heart you
the PROMONTORY 412IIIGUFRASrRF.ET SAN LUIS ORMPO.CALIFORNIA 11401
905 544-ISS] 1�,905 5141573
v
Mayor Ron Dunin `-
Re: Appeal of 1200 Monterey
August 3, 1990
Pale 2
will agree that the building will be an addition to the City that not only we are proud of, but
so too our children.
Respectfully submitted
S( , J,Co-.
Radakovich, Shaw& Co.
Certified Public Accountants
RCaKoNlawau- o.
"` E iNC AGENDA -
_ RECEIVED
DATE LLI i-rEM # - "
Ai1G 1 y 1ggn
8/17/90 Jnie t"W
O ��iLCrrn � l,n
C&N 11114 em1pam.PA
Dear Members of the Council,
I am writing you to express my concern on the 1200
Monteray Street builbing, and unfouftantly my Grandmother
and I can not attend the meeting.
We Feel the building is to high and massive for the area.
The lot is too small for such a massive building.It is
out of char.ticterwith the neighborhood. There are no other buildings
that tall in the area. Also the few tall buildings in San
Luis are set back fuom the sidewalk. This building will
not be . This brings up another problem of traffic and
visibilty for cars headed down Toro attempting to cross
or turn on Monteray Street. Toro at Monteray Street is
allready a very busy and dirriculy intersection. This
building will bring added traffic to an allready difficult
intersection. I checked with in city and they have no
plans to put a stop light at this intercetion.
Also to make matters worse the auto dealers block
one lane of traffic to unload new cars. This makes Toro a
one lane street. This happens where the building s driveway
will be .
I an also concerned that the hight of this building will
block my only veiw allmost completly. I con now see the
trees on Monteray St reet all the wad over to Johnson Ave . ,
O and the hill side above . This building will block all that.
My family has owned this home for over 70 years and had
no complants when other offices came into the neighboorhood.
But we feel this building is just too out of character
with the neighboorhood.
Over all this building dose not fit in with the area
or I feel, the city plans for Monteray Street.
Thank you for you time and I hope you will denie this
building.
DENI)6E GINGG
LINDA HAMPTON
969 Toro ST.
San Luis Obispo
_ P. Vr CA 03401
ec wt c