Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-07-2012 ph1 appeal of arc approval 1340 taft
counci lagenoa RepoRt C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r Prepared By :Pam Ricci, Senior Planne r SUBJECT :APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVA L OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 1340 TAFT STREET (ARC 50-09). RECOMMENDATIO N Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 9), denying the appeals, and upholding the Architectural Revie w Commission's action to approve the mixed-use project at 1340 Taft Street, based on findings, an d subject to conditions, including a condition approving the alternative project design . REPORT-IN-BRIE F Report in Brie f The applicant, Eran Fields o f Icon at SLO, LLC, i s proposing to redevelop a former gas station site which closed in 2005 . To accommodate sit e development, the gas station, convenience store, fue l pump canopies, and site improvements would b e demolished to construct a multi-story, mixed-us e project . The propose d mixed-use project woul d contain seven residential units, including on e affordable unit, and 3,90 0 square feet of commercia l space . The subject property is 19,705 square feet in area (0 .45 acre), is zoned Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) and is located at the northwest corner of Taft Street and Kentucky Avenue (Figure 1): The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the project on June 18, 2012, based o n findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 6). The ARC agreed with conclusions in the staff report that the project met adopted Community Design Standards, City goals and policies to provid e housing and mixed uses, and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood . PHI-1 A Meeting Date August 7, 2012 Item Number pH 1 Figure 1 . Project site and vicinity Council Agenda Report – Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street ) August7,2012 Page 2 On June 27, 2012, Isabel Marques, a neighbor of the project site, filed an appeal . Three concerns were raised in the appellant's statement, which were building height, use of den/study rooms a s bedrooms, and traffic impacts associated with alley access (Attachment 4). On June 28, 2012, Sandra Rowley on behalf of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) als o filed an appeal . The RQN appeal states that : the size, scale and mass of the project are too large for the area ; design impacts related to overlook, ingress/egress, parking and noise were not adequatel y considered; and the project is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines, Municipal Cod e and General Plan (Attachment 5). Per Municipal Code Section 17 .66, appeals of ARC decisions require a public hearing before th e City Council . The following sections of this report describe the ARC review of the project desig n over three public hearings, the details of the two appeals, pertinent provisions of State and local la w related to affordable housing projects, and an alternative project design proposed by the applicant t o further address the concerns of the appellants . DISCUSSIO N Earlier Version of the Projec t The version of the project that the ARC ultimately approved was reduced in scale from plan s originally submitted by the applicant in 2009 which included 20 residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space . That version of the project required numerous exceptions to propert y development standards which were requested through a Planned Development (PD) Overla y Rezoning . The Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 10, 2010 and continued actio n with direction to respond to massing, parking, access, traffic, and building design issues that wer e raised during the meeting . A reduced version of the project with 3,000 square feet of commercial space and 16 residential unit s was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2010 . Following public input an d discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the Council deny the project based on concern s that the project was incompatible with the neighborhood . Instead of pursuing this plan with a n appeal to the Council, the applicant decided to return with a project that was smaller in scale an d complied with property development standards . Therefore, the reduced-scale version of the projec t submitted by the applicant at the end of 2011 required review by the ARC of the site and buildin g design, but did not require review by the Planning Commission because it did not include exceptio n requests or other entitlements requiring their review , Architectural Review Commission Actio n On June 18, 2012, the ARC on a 5-2 vote (Commissioners Curtis & Palazzo voting no) granted fina l approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 6). Th e Commission concluded that the mixed-use project was a good example of an infill project that me t property development standards for the C-N zone, would be compatible with surroundin g development, and was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines . A finding in th e resolution approving the project also noted that the project makes good use of a deteriorated an d unattractive site that has not been viable for many years and creates an attractive and efficient site development . PH1-2 Council Agenda Report – Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street) August 7,2012 Page3 The project was reviewed by the ARC a total of three times . The initial conceptual review occurre d on March 5, 2012, to obtain the Commission's reading on a number of project elements such a s building massing, access form the alley, the use of mechanical lifts for the residential units, and uni t sizes and floor plan layouts . At the close of this meeting, the Commission supported the overal l scale, building footprints and access proposed for the project, and provided direction on items to b e addressed in plans submitted for final review, taking into account the comments provided during th e public hearing (Attachment 8). A total of 13 people provided comments during the public hearing with speakers in support of th e project and those with concerns about the design . Concerns raised at the hearing included th e followings •scale of project buildings being too large , •alley access , removal of the screen wall along the alley , the use of vehicle lifts for parking spaces , the overall amount of project parking not being sufficient, an d the potential of the dens to be used as bedrooms . Speakers in support of the project noted that parking met standards without the need for mixed-us e reductions, the efficiency and space-saving benefits of parking lifts, and the overall benefit of an attractive mixed-use project where there is currently urban blight . A full summary of th e Commission's discussion and public comments is reflected in the meeting minutes which ar e included as part of Attachment 8 . On May 7, 2012, the ARC reviewed the project and again continued the project with directio n (Attachment 7). The Commission supported modifications made by the applicant to increase th e width of the alley from 20 feet to 26 feet adjacent to the project to make alley access mor e functional, to increase the floor area and functionality of the floor plan for the affordable housin g unit, and to further articulate the alley and parking lot elevations of the building . The ARC's actio n to continue the project wasfocused on exploring the possibility of stepping back the third floor o f the building further from the alley and to provide certain architectural details : There was activ e involvement from the public again at this meeting with a total of 13 speakers . The nature o f comments were similar to those brought up on March 5 th with many of the same speakers present . The detailed minutes are included as part of Attachment 7 . In response to ARC direction to explore ways to further step back the new building from the alle y closest to existing residences, the applicant had modified plans to set the third floor back a n additional 3'6" from the alley. Seven members of the public spoke at this meeting and the detaile d minutes are included as part of Attachment 6 . With their action to grant final approval on June 18 , 2012, a majority of the Commissioners were satisfied that the project had been thoroughly reviewe d and was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines . Staff's Responses to Appeal Issue s The following is a brief summary of the appellants' specific reasons for the appeal and staff' s response on those issues. Council Agenda Report - Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Stree t August 7,2012 Page 4 Marques Appea l 1 . The new building height is not compatible with the neighborhood . Response :The applicant has not requested any exceptions to building height . In the C-N zone, the maximum allowable building height is 35 feet . As shown in Figure 2 below, the tallest part of the building does not exceed 35 feet and is oriented toward the center of the site . This is consistent with Community Design Guideline 5 .4 C .2 which encourages new residential projects to step back in height from the street and provide entries to individual units from the street . Figure Z .Cross section showing varied building height (Kentucky Avenue parking lot ) The floor plan design encourages den/study rooms to be used as bedroom s Response :Each of the six townhome units in the project contain two bedrooms, two and one-hal f bathrooms, kitchen and a den totaling 1,680 square feet . The den in each unit is 12 `by 13'. The Zoning Regulations contain definitions of both a bedroom and a den (Chapter 17 .100). The den s included in the project comply with the definition of a den as they are open to other living areas o n at least one side . The applicant has stated the den/study is market driven to accommodate the need s of students, teachers, or couples who might have kids and may desire a separate area to study, relax , and "get away". The Zoning Regulations do not require additional parking for a den and having a den does not affect a unit's density value . Therefore, the proposal to integrate dens is consistent with the City's regulations . To address concerns with the possibility of additional bedrooms bein g created from the dens in the future, the ARC included Condition No . 12 that precludes alterations t o create additional bedrooms . The proposed alley access creates traffic impacts . Response :The proposed alley access is a key component of the project design and was thoroughl y analyzed during the conceptual review of the project on March 5, 2012 . The staff report for tha t meeting is included as part of Attachment 8 which includes a detailed analysis of the issue . In sum , the analysis indicated that the project design without access to Taft Street is a benefit to the fre e flow of traffic and addressing safety concerns given traffic speeds, the locations of existin g driveways, and Taft Street serving as a linkage to and from Highway 101 . To address concern s with added vehicle trips to the alley, the applicant responded to ARC direction to widen the alle y PH1-4 Council Agenda Report - Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Stree t August7,2012 from 20' to 26'. The March 5, 2012, ARC staff report points out an additional advantage of th e access with parking being screened from street views by buildings, rather than parking lots , paralleling the street . This building orientation is consistent with Community Design Guideline s goals to have new buildings address the street edge as well as screen parking . The ARC concluded that the benefits of the proposed access outweighed the potential concerns . RQN Appeal 1 . The size, scale and mass of the project are too large for the area . Response :This project is being proposed for the C-N district which allows mixed-us e development by right (Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations). The applicant submitted an applicatio n for conceptual review to obtain feedback from the ARC on several features of the project design . This feedback included items such as size, scale and mass . The ARC concluded on March 5, 2012 , with its initial review of the project that the overall building footprints and scale of the mixed-us e project were appropriate in the C-N zone since no exceptions to property development standard s were requested and the main residential building had a two-story mass along Kentucky Avenu e stepping back to its maximum height at the interior of the lot consistent with Community Desig n Guidelines . 2 . Design impacts related to overlook, ingress/egress, parking and noise were no t adequately considered . Response :The staff report for the ARC'S conceptual review of the project articulated the pros an d cons of the alley access to parking and the use lift parking devices to meet the parking requirements . The ARC supported the alley access as a means of ingress and egress to project parking since i t minimized access points to the site providing safety benefits and screened parking from stree t views . Overlook concerns are minimized with outdoor decks for the residential units oriente d toward the interior of the lot (parking lot) and the adjoining streets . To respond to the comment that traffic and noise impacts were not evaluated thoroughly, a traffi c study for a much more intensive version of the project including 20 residential units and 5,50 0 square feet of commercial space was prepared in 2009 . That study used conservative traffi c generation assumptions and still the net conclusion was that the project would not significantl y impact traffic operations on the local street system. While the project design has changed and th e scale dramatically reduced, the report still provides relevant background data on accident histor y and level of service on adjacent streets. Where appropriate, recommendations of the traffic analysi s related to sight distance and pedestrian travel have been incorporated as project conditions . Given the relatively small size of the proposed project and its projected traffic generation, a separate nois e analysis was not a requirement . 3 . The project is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines, Municipal Cod e and General Plan,including LUE Policies 2 .2 :10 Compatible Development and 2 .2 .1 2 Residential Project Objectives . PH1-5 Page 5 Council Agenda Report – Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street) August 7,2012 Page 6 Response :LUE Policy 2 .2 .10 encourages new multi-family housing to be compatible with an y nearby lower density development Of the existing neighborhood . The policy was intended t o primarily address new housing projects in residential zones, rather than a mixed-use project in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zone, which is the zoning of the project site . The intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district is "...to provide for retail sales and persona l services primarily for the convenience of surrounding residential areas, in small-scale, pedestrian - oriented developments ." Mixed use projects (combined commercial and residential uses) ar e allowed by right in the C-N zone . It is expected that the design of the new development will reflect , to some degree, its different use . The property development standards for the C-N zone are simila r to the adjacent R-2 zoning including other yard requirements, a 35-foot maximum building height , and density standard of 12 units per acres for both zones . The project complies with LUE Polic y 2 .2 .10 by : having two-story development closest to Kentucky Avenue and stepping back in height toward the center of the lot ; providing a substantial setback between project buildings and th e closest buildings on adjacent sites (30 feet); and complying with all property development standard s for the C-N zone . LUE Policy 2 .2 .12 provides a list of desirable features that residential projects should include suc h as privacy for residents and neighbors, adequate storage and parking, and pedestrian access . Severa l of these objectives have already been discussed in responses to the appeal points . The objective for projects to have design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction is addressed in the projec t by having entries to residential units facing Kentucky Avenue . Density Bonus The project includes a request for density bonus and provides one affordable unit as allowed unde r State law . Senate Bill 1818 took effect in January of 2005 and made important changes to lower th e percentage of affordable units required of developers in order to qualify for a density bonus, an d raised the maximum bonus to 35%. The goal of this State legislation is to provide further incentive s to developers to include affordable units within their projects . Chapter 17 .90, Affordable Housin g Incentives, and Chapter 17 .91, Inclusionary Housing Requirements, of the City's Zonin g Regulations help effectuate the development of affordable housing at the local level . To meet the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement, the applicant is including a deed-restricted affordable housing unit within the project . The two-bedroom unit is located on the second floor o f Building A oriented toward Taft Street and has 700 square feet of floor area . The inclusion of an affordable unit within the project entitles the applicant to a density bonus . With at least 20% of the total project units being affordable to low-income families, a 35% density bonu s is allowed by State law . With the 35% density bonus, the project is allowed 7 .33 density unit s which accommodate the 7 two-bedroom units proposed (5 .43 units allowed density + 35% densit y bonus (1 .90) 7 .33) As an affordable housing project, the applicant is also entitled to at least two project concessions o r incentives . With the review of the project, the ARC supported the lift parking for most of th e residential units as a space efficient and attractive alternative to surface parking and as one of th e allowed incentives . The approval of the lift parking as proposed is considered an incentive since th e upper level of the mechanical lifts do not expressly meet the dimensional standard for parkin g PHI-6 Council Agenda Report — Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street ) August 7,2012 Page 7 spaces in the City's Parking & Driveway Standards and do not accommodate some larger trucks an d SUVs . The lower level of the mechanical lifts accommodates a wider range of vehicles . Once a project elects to use a density bonus, under Government Code Section 65915 .(p) (B), the Cit y cannot require a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds two onsite parking spaces for two to thre e bedroom units . The applicant qualifies to request an additional incentive beyond the lift parking incentive describe d above because the project includes a low-income affordable housing unit within the project . Additional incentives could include a request for a height or setback exception or relaxation o f parking requirements . These incentives have not been requested . Based on staff's analysis th e project (either the ARC approved or the alternative being proposed by the applicant to addresse s concerns raised in the appeals) complies with City property development standards even though th e applicant could have requested further incentives . State law requires a local jurisdiction to approv e requested density bonuses and incentives unless findings are made based on substantial evidenc e that their approval will result in a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or th e physical environment. Alternative Project Desig n After the two appeals were filed, applicant Eran Fields met wit h appellant Isabel Marques, neighbor Edith Jakes, an d members of RQN . The purpose of th e meetings were t o further understand th e appellants' concern s with the project desig n and identify possibl e design modifications that might addres s those concerns . The applicant offere d a new design that would keep the existing screen wall along the alley and add access to the sit e through a new driveway off of Kentucky Avenue, rather than directly off the alley (see Figure 3 above). The ability to achieve this was accomplished by eliminating one of the three leve l townhomes closest to the alley . This change addresses several of the concerns raised in the appeal s and heard at the public hearings before the ARC including (see Figure 4 below): 1 . Retention of the screen wall to maintain the existing barrier between the project site and th e alley, 2 Direct all site access to the project driveway and not add traffic to the alley, PH1-7 Council Agenda Report - Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street ) August 7,2012 Page 8 3.Provide a more substantial buffer between the three-level building on the project site an d residential neighborhood (specifically 42'-6" from the northern face of Building A to th e north side of the existing alley), an d 4.Reduction in the overall building mass achieved with the removal of the end townhome unit . The site coverage is decreased from 48% to 43% and the commercial component is reduce d by 19%. New 2-bedroom unit New 16-foot project drivewa y Figure 4 . Alternative Site Pla n With the review of the project on May 7 th,the ARC had asked the applicant to "explore moving th e third floor mass of Building B closest to the alley to the Taft Street frontage of Building A t o provide a better transition between the project and the existing residential neighborhood alon g Kentucky ." When the project returned to the ARC on June 18 th, plans showed an additional 3'6 " setback of the third floor of the townhome closest to the alley to address the direction to look a t ways to further step back the building . The alternative design is consistent with the ARC's origina l direction to relocate living units above the commercial space on Taft and to have the third level o f Building B located further away from the existing neighborhood . With the alternative design, th e eliminated end townhome that allows for the added driveway and larger building separation is no w located on the second and third levels of Building A oriented to Taft Street . Staff supports the alternative plan since it addresses several of the key concerns of the neighbor s and is consistent with ARC direction to relocate a residential unit closer to Taft Street . Th e applicant has indicated that he supports proceeding with this updated plan and the ARC has bee n PH1-8 Council Agenda Report – Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street )August7,2012 Page 9 apprised on this impending change . To accommodate the shifts in the residential units, th e commercial space within the project is reduced from 3,900 square feet to 3,149 square feet with 28 0 square feet of amenity space for the residential units . Because the alternative plan does not create a substantive change in the building design from wha t the ARC already approved and addresses site concerns, the Community Development Directo r could further review the project plans after Council review without the need for the project to retur n to the ARC . If the appeal is denied and council wishes to allow the project to proceed the n Condition No . 1 has been updated to reflect that the Council's action includes the approval of th e alternative project design . Conclusio n The project offers a quality design while promoting infill and intensification through redevelopmen t of a blighted, abandoned service station . The proposed project also fulfills City goals to provid e affordable housing since one of the units will be built on site and dedicated affordable . The review of the project by the ARC was thorough with three hearings and considerable publi c testimony both for and against its approval . Through this process substantial changes were mad e resulting in a project reduced in scale and size and more compatible with the surroundin g neighborhood. The applicant has made a concerted effort to design a project that meets City standards an d addresses neighborhood concerns as they have been brought forward. The latest effort by th e applicant to meet with appellants resulted in further modifications to the design to address thei r concerns . FISCAL IMPAC T When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which foun d that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced . Accordingly, since the proposed project i s consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact . ALTERNATIVE S 1.Deny the appeal and approve the project as accepted by the Architectural Review Commission . 2.Direct staff to return with necessary findings based on substantial evidence that the approval o f the project with density bonus will result in a specific adverse impact upon public health an d safety or the physical environment or the concession or incentive is not required in order t o provide affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052 .5 of the Health and Safety Code , or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). Staff does not recommend this action as no information has been presented to support thes e findings . No environmental issues or public safety issues have been identified that have no t been addressed through design measures . Furthermore, market rate rentals exceed affordabl e housing rates and therefore a finding cannot be made that affordable housing costs can be me t PH1-9 Council Agenda Report --Appeals of Icon Project (ARC 50-09 ; 1340 Taft Street ) August 7,2012 Page 10 without the proposed deed restricted affordable unit . 3.If Council directs staff to bring back findings pursuant to alternative 2, Council coul d additionally direct staff to return with necessary findings to uphold the appeal based on th e project's incompatibility with the neighborhood as outlined in the appeal : building height, the potential of the dens to be converted to bedrooms, alley impacts, parking, and consistency wit h the Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, and General Plan . Staff does not recommend this alternative because the project meets the all developmen t standards for the CN zone, specifically building height and the definitions of a den an d bedroom . The project is allowed the incentive to use lifts instead of standard parking space s under State density bonus law . The ARC determined that the project is in conformance with th e Community Design Guidelines . The project complies with General Plan policies regardin g compatible development by stepping back the upper building levels, providing a substantial setback from neighboring properties, and meeting all the CN development standards . The alternative design further addresses the concerns of the appellants by relocating the en d townhome adjacent to neighboring residences and maintaining the retaining wall along the alley . 4.The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed . Direction should be given to staff and the applicants . ATTACHMENT S 1.Vicinity Ma p 2.Reduced scale project plans approved by the ARC on 6-18-1 2 3.Applicant's description and reduced scale alternative design plan s 4.Appeal from Isabel Marques dated 6-27-1 2 5.Appeal from RQN dated 6-28-1 2 6.6-18-12 ARC follow-up letter, resolution, staff report & minute s 7.5-7-12 ARC follow-up letter, staff report without attachments & minute s 8.3-5-12 ARC follow-up letter, staff report without attachments & minute s 9.Draft Resolutio n DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL :11" x 17" colored plans of project design approve d by ARC on 6-18-12 & the alternative design plan s AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE :Past ARC reports with all attachments and 2009 Traffic Impact Report T :\Council Agenda Reports\2012\2012-08-07\Appeal of ARC approval - 1340 Taft (Johnson-Ricci) PHI-I0 TAFT STREET & KENTUCKY AVENU E SAN LUIS OBISPO, GA 9340 5 IDLE C H SNEIREA 0030 07 IA31ACAL') C1EDOYEM3E 733L131POLOYA07 COW=3E7.37.31.020 0 0,MAO9ENMIYAICORES AD11(Y'COMrS+3CRF 33ACIEx12 .5A1311SSFFOMA! LE IOMUS I&A R 135-11916wA3Ef WE IMIS S I 07C10AIlE I SR .COMPUES .1'0115 313 30 3FCI05S1ELVf 751ESS I1IW 13RPE8,SeZR1Mr),:d020 OW6D15 0INECal1111lBO3717 MEW1337 EOSVANLIIO17 33330014 0512047151E SIS 41D0 2ARAM: 011.170777:201.607371 752287A2E 5 OMNI &t HOpNANSEP IIAtItHA3CNtEt1LM EMO 'WHOM AYZIATIER00 : m1ARRELLA.31RID SAWA$RP98RR. CA 9350120?:1011622745 F:635AF2A014 SMLLENMIMMIOISNECOMM MARC 11115005 PA. 1247 01E SIRE 2135350RUM..93445 ?:101.223.6149 7:5237711175 MINMMPEIMIINFLT OAVD N.93ACR A550CMTES RLI PANDASAVEMIEMMAIARBARA.1310 1T: 35376111 7 7.205196 .0573 AD,I .MERITET AC-S 1315 SURVEYlOEMOU711DI N .- 370 55155UNAl.'1513 1'53NANERSM'12X 32.7 MOND FU30WPICIPI9NP22FMR00RRE ICCSSAiSECOADFL00R SSMMERCMLPUNP23 SE CDIDROORRFSIOE2FIML NAN 32.4 113&3 PEMEIAW PM12.9 R00FPUN ls.1 SRTEA13RELEVA155115331ESIERDRELEVAIDIIIS 1133 611E AMA ELL%7031$WOXS001IEM EASA OOL0REDEIFMID36 133 COLOMb51NMTDX S31A COLMEORIEV3IICN5 YAIMTREES03.1 121.5 5 ELELM1ACN5SCOIISEESAllDL1lN1SCR0S55ELRI04235.3 11.4539.1 PAMOETA05 5.92 0E1315L3 LARSCUEPI10 •10 F7.3LONSMAL7KY-6013'ICI M E10 FT,Al0N0AllTYAN3CERrIORI,IS E EADENML.IRUCNRE-EO3FUESti 33112 40f000F b ft(37.GK5TPMPFATY WE A3D.CEM FO PARDIG-00MPL9Sr11AIIXLE A OF 000E5'L'ATNRGTFIDOR D F7.P1.001613E6i PIAONt07 A.CE?1170 004133783At 37RICA1730CO501035312191E0 O FCODE7M7334ECPSIAGULDCFOWMN sex um.NOLLOW17113F1:.PUESwj 3E0.07 .166005F37IRIS373AR3 ARELO.IEG I tt.MIORCUNEDVApp.L330 .35073-.37 = 7101 370,13 .15.020 RAA PAMN O 0,7 to LWIS xx EAtH(77g47330 NATE 6ARL1E51313137136.'NtCXMO.CL(130EP tn U77 a5Et0IMINMCPMLEMRODI(PGS.E II.IONSMEEFDRTACN5 U11ISCO.AEAORt!MCI PER 300 SF N30SSPM0'300330334PX4AlE3 SPICES PXWVCIMIFNy(SJ.WS F(0F5,IXL'.150603,03 72310LAV0Ul933DDEOAAEPAR7740,3•O-577.1 MD MY.CIHS.YIMI,SBI f!AKX90M.Stom1T0/FPFOGI L! C07MIATo'0A7LOPAE37303ACFdR. F3UR07301727P 12000YP3EFOA136£PIXOS AEWFSIE O ..J6: ICCCLE SPACES (03A9l01A0711E A3GE3 x 153) PIMPOGEDUtE I IWLLNA'G A A210007I0O. 23373FOFRE1A l 33CN20RC0R 13ZO 515 CAMOM0(' ACE279-ARORSAILE1AN1 Ap 1C.07 3315G9GX 70 AN IMOESPACFS EYM.LUDESI103.00PACCEd516LE5/3CE.341001 L SPACE/506 tip Attc SNIDWSNECLMSSd (tOSUUES-3037-EEMAH73OIULNNGNF1301Td5 FT.)E10S3NG 33E733EM730E(ELEV. 277.7).OAAC 5UI,IMS310010 SCXCIECY.ICIClIOIE3I5N.2633 • 710NEPIE1E1121413 542 ARMEOSV2 - ELE51ZI 3 BURDIISI 6 .20£2509615235703I7073IIIOU51WUC 33 APPROX . 11£251 EACH2 at3CE57E313MI17PRI3IEAN0175130IET(YS107 MMLFIULL 01C£PNIDENTACGE5 5 1 IANOCAPACCEIAOOEVGPORSPIGEONCMXE PIXISVX 25P33E51ERLN0M PDMIE 3MO43M0 LF16151E36AM6E4NLLRO3PNDESIMC06NANNWPAG2ES313LEYGDa515500011G1MF UA1Lau101N5Hf10XI 35'2- 000A,5%3 MUM MOOING NEWT-3S RA X13INSA4ECASEIR0EgIAV..335S3-ANR EUIOItS MEIGRTAT ROOF IEIE13103110.37ELEV.372.5 XSNESIELE7-22550.531, 0M3EO122-NN315.S NO3E :1 .14 MSK 3E103073APPIEAUE115100E5510E3NUYREC4ILTN.W IIGAEASE IAPFRNOIISSMFACEARFA 03100t1 EEC PLM 322 FOR 73M310W PREVEAIEA LOCA110N 1115IROPOSE0. MQVEIOPMEMI34IBIENU5E5142 TCC'SIS13507 MO (2) $3 MUMS. NE TOTAL PEAOFNIML DLVELEIPA E.FNZ NCW PES:•SM(6111RRETVAIEZ-9EDROOMI0131DC49E UARS WNHPN1311733ka1Ni35303FIAINI-•137F(I) 2•SEOR00MAFF0RN1IE MC ' 1HE TOTALCOMMERNILDCCLOPAMNF91CUID M ▪3322 33n OF O133144311000 REM. tNEDEM6N01119221SNETO MOM NFSHIOb'N7O512115 IEA 44M 9APA61MLRE'JDEN06 LSM401150 A=7.05211/OY10ISAIE&T8AM10.3EAETA$SNCADP.SESLDIYAi77 MEET. 1115 PROh0TCOWLES VM131LZ61S4S 1@Gd116S M 35151351106 OA ZONE . SIDS PROS-CI N602POMTE6 SUSTADMBL7 DESRN PMC110E531CUED376 REEYCLEIIUa1(RLLS . MIURALY£I11RA7100-7403VATNEP33Em105735EE1(NHLY[SFOUQS ZNIPERVDSCIE LNBONI00203031.3.3042DM-SAM A GAM W4■tl.NtON MAW. YARD6FNEDMA6 •1977.AtOH5T3FT000Mf11E57AW 000E -ISPACE13 SPACES j 26 SPACES (COWLIESA70t,00EI PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7h>n 10L£ SHUT P(+2?001 : 863 1 EOPF7 AO .1 ~131Mt9 o DEMOI .RTON NOTES : DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES Oa!SHE. DEMOLISH EXISTING WALL ALONG ALLEY R . D . W. DEMOLISH ALL EXISTING CONCRETE PADS AND ASPHALT PAVING . DEMOLISH 10'OO" OF EXISTING WALL ALONG WEST PROPERTY ONE. }TochhauserMatter 122E. AkkELLAG ASANTA BAROARACALIPOCA.In 8310 17<06 962 275 6 F6 IEA6 8 830,Ls .70 PIR ASS. 67/87 BLOCK 3 THE ARLINGTON ADDITION CD NOTE: SEE SNEETA2.2 FOR SITE AL1N DINENS!O1VS Hochhause r Blatte r SITE PLAN SHOWING GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES u, - Al2C}IITECTUR f AND PLANNING 1.22E . AKREI.I.I(SA1SANTA BARBAR A CA.Is- KNIA4)1(1 1 8(35 963 274 6 1i BUILDING B BUILDINGA An, 11111111Iwmu COMMUGKL fP{~ Co S222F E STAGE ARCIIITGCTtR E AND PLANNING DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGf:. FOR PARING t 122E.A%kI0. AGASANTA BARBAR A CA S.IFORNIA 93101NUS9622746 TONAL SI CE 1 P T. E;1.201A.! iCEL 3 PER T;. U '~WECilOrSWAGE '?lGH'I HP 1 J T111iNout:i. ARV.14St."( 0 ::::,A2;cir NOTE: SEE SHEETA22 FOR SITE PU1N DIMENSIONS Hechhaaser Blatter rtltCliITLCTURr 1 AND PLANNIN G a-MOTIONALSIGNAGE /v fpS FARKM 122E ARR..LA0 ASANTA HARBARA CAL.,POANIA 9210 1 805 962 2Ta 0aOIAL GNAGf z 02 a o~~x HC).s m 5 •IREGT FOR P' ALSIGNAG E NG 1 I I soRrA i (1 fUUPEATY LINE opt List I 1 ROOK PLAN- BASEMENT ur -Ur AL Lu+rn liochhause r BiatterKENTUCKY AVENU E '.:111111111I lI[neimiiu-e■i 11 FLUOR PLAN -1st FLOOR u+ •~* ARCHiTEETURE AND PLANNING ssc000ILUO 0Fmstf)m1.BL0 •& 122F., ARIE2,1 AGASANTA SAM-TARA (:.)1 .StS)Rh'IA 9)10 1005902.2746 e°~- ~~~ t) Hochhauser Blatter U ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNIN G 122 E.ARRBLLAGASANTA BARBARACAGFORNIA93101805 962 2746 1KI&I -94UPIN-J-1 E MIR 672 N 0 mna A2 POOF PLAN u.•*~ KEYNOTES Hochhause r Matter 1p SMOOTH PIASTER ~t nniroa 02 RHRNZNKCLAOOING Q3 CORRUGATE, METALROO F q ALUMINUM WINOOW SYSTE MnxnAEA GREEN WALL SYSTE M~ -L •ARCETITECTUR B AND PI.ANNANG wff i _` F 3 ~©.FEAT $18 METAL RAILING SYSTEM~y p'V6 .:....1. ~J 12213, ARRM2,AOA-F 1 ..0 !1 "-+ 1 1 3 T 5 94nfLLVpR6uJp8 M O MINGWALALR,OF EDM SANTA eA A 931 1CALIIKIRN1431013~,1B q8 WALL MOUNTED FA(I'URE 805 962 2946~1 f'~~-'(=i 3 3 }€~~~9 PANTE,.CEMENLRKNIS SEIN ERRUamh •k9 ~IffA,oxCOR 1t I ZAam58A—yyeBAgDAB —I ^~F 'O ~°a 3 WEST ELEVATION -E-E EE El 0o :eD + o aaA,D,:a, 3Tflex aDO !~•IINI q ~..~I.~~ +~~ ®i ~ (~~®I I/J mod*4 II 'q t q ■R'TM ay.. ea. W ®®FY fkvtDY.xVd ~.'~.®2 _gam Rf1z2a dBfYlIStIE "RIMNBWR ~b]WafN SHERiuis,t•Ef'f WRIM0.'.. A3 . EAST ELEVATION (KENTUCKY AVENUE)+,>-+a 2 °Ba`Dri t) KEYMOTE S0SMOOTH PIASTER 02 RHEINZINKCLADANG q3 CORRUGATED METAL ROOF ALUMINUMWINEOW SYSTE M Q GREEN WALL SYSTEM © FIAT BAR METAL RAILING SYSTEM 07 MErALIKICiF AWNIN G © WALL MOUNTED FUTUR E ® PAuNTEO.EEMENTRIOUS SIOIN G i FINinN' ~SfEMFHroF 1 SANOWICHES )I BAGELS SOUTH ELEVATION (TAFT STREET ) 0°~nSiOm I , $,gnoDW on LT=, '~nmv.SV.F•nwx &kY 4S9 %~AKlNSFNO6NaCFFEFFF { NORTH ELEVATION OF ALL SUEETS LEETETF£nAOT 122E. ARRULT,AGA SANTA BARBARA CALTPORN1A 9310 1 805 962 2746 ARCEUTECTUDE AND PLANNING 122 E. ARRHCLAOAS AN TA BARBARACALIFORNIA 93101 805 962 2746 ,F. EREEOR SIEMPIG M NG SRS rn sa.ns G1) stilo:tibehraustz j;...AND I•i-ANIKMO 2,1v.Atutuu,tan SAN-ria.ARBARA Csgrt,2XI01,4 ,1tt'l WEST-B.01AM tay.,tv .,:. : it :RU0.Y aft ;$$j A3•4 EAST EtelAlIONIMMICk''rAVENUE F(achhauser 13latta r A [SY'6iF 1'3..1 Am)ANK1\t:: f .•\NA3 3X1NYA!smt{1nHi ^^~----~'~ ----''-~''1 -- NOUNA31a ;:9.6 so s143'6 V 3N 1 )il'W )v v,TNu YS.:wVl` _-..__- — —Hochhauser Blatter— --- R I - f 0 w ltPp -_ARCHD8017JRE AND PLANNING ~y~44 ►`o A BAURASANBAR\ ~•`,r 3 GMORNIA93101 f 805 962 274 6 3 ~ 3,33, ( 3 L—3—1 b 1 E i _~P te.; aax wa Zii 3 CROSS SECTION A ' - -1 .337 61623f0 .5 wa Rx S . e4_v 702.6 J i ~•—,~'~~t IS i .i{F,3{t (([ 5:—.-j ni ~3-i - ---i'' 225 .l F i l T F ~ "2 25 SW .HiEii s~icam'txrs .~ ..w,s {..ek .3TSS~v.i -.,c't-^F '..y- PSwnYiq YW i'bYgSgra,e ---...w .sa~~t ~RBSS=i ~a `30483g5t664Et32,3 erw.2T2D_ 0303,82 Fber 12'-0" $CSx4 14AJd,—I'POlM IIP 96 . ,—_ A4 . CROSS SECTION •WEST1,- 8E.6"}s'[',ures[33ev6tob' c .`E ,u a r~°"T F ti.Hochhanser Blatte r 31°~T--~~~`,.m'r•~I>dx~a '-a£.::.~~-¢R,~e13~e ,..,;c~ '7 .-!n /=.~,!.£:'Fe:aS Es ~~ +`'!~~ix ~._,rs1.L~~«r xr Y.:~";..i ~~~r_5 '€:'~:~'''~"E8 1}y nu::••>.~':..<°::>.. ~`:1r&,:w .<'r .cev «~;~c ;,}~~•a~j ~>,>i `u~a.i-R~>3°r7{~e'!ej i Fli z ':~...e"'.7 r .€_~~~=~°'?'~uaS~Ert ttF iF:t ~};~<gtY~;:«ra°'i~[~3 ~ `~ •i h tt:x ~P,<~t ~i{~~~~~i ..'ar EEG ~~F .-{'E?•...~3t3 ~~~~cy.°,t~;a'W'--.-[.£',i ..#.t~i`•:-:,.«'Y•»9:!]tSEP<jI%.:%:FW[~~F.»£,£[^flo4z7 `OSRWL^.54!]?.e .E .£.:«•^,WWE ...-.~1 .J C^.,A'-•3-!Vw ...n 'f ...WR ~}%{.'.EiS ARCF[S• 1'+JRL•,.:?Y .r,-:f ;:t:~~:,,<r :::~.;:~':'..S~x>,..:4irv„t>S::E;.^.°°"` „..i ..,is ~I%~`«-..s ~.-...-b!{~!•~: •~ 'SS`Y'j S .i}~ ''1'4.'--8S;.r -£ x ,<tx ;rzrx 'i`•:':5 ;.g,s •~1,_1r.F;z,<xe~~E-c'"'~e~'•;~,c Y..„,.t>;:ti:tr;~, ~,`'•.-,.rA,y.I _^'';;`%~=~.::_ '3 t'x•y.g3.;: x:r:•_.::,j.::~is Y5 ~r - k ~1`~~:Yt',r1 __~..~.t'€,.,~'~'-~-=:.f AND PLANNING x.,v ~~'-f ::Ei•:>b ~a T --'1 ~.->:.j f .y ~}_a .E~q -~t'•t `t T'.~F "t`'a'~,~%""':W :'yrF ,;~1 `,aa•F :°":•;:1':i'ra°gEa .b>m1111 11.iv."d•'3.Ja4F -1 .s kY :~..y rt .,,:r _•~`u ' ('+f {t i~'~: ~,~~~,-}.t~_.'i ""°".~'.`'.L'":,"`f''~'_-rX < fi'cr. ctk .',xn'1-;--h .t ...,.,,,>. °r ,_!.r F ;~xG'•r"~,i fii:E£.,.n.~'•>sr. s E.`/f n .Y e (E r #' ~t ...,,,•.:s '.:;+:'°.»rkY~"':,, ,'g,.J~.,`;-"-!`-_.J -~Y 8.-'.`t izzF nRx}ES.f.nGnSANTA SAREIAE.x?u ,.-....a1:ec +F a°'r•!'t >:.,-,"c ....-.''.3a'::..a1 xxgseGi,Fi~g<'.ay~s~,. -w:t'-• fa~iY-t~3y!k.e .9`,•, i3 •ydF ..v _,,..:;_...:,};..., w:i 1 K,.•a^"'.1 --~~•Y'°xG~,T;•-:.f :. ".~'". ww~~y-:f [: A3_tFORNIAN]n D3J)Itl l"_a`:t..:i~«;=&~w~':.~:..~.a a J ~,,...'~'•~ir s o;~>"?3::::::::}... }'.:>.:<:~'w"33 '^~ -.A :: _x,xc<,a°^.,..~:.:=ti n•1,... ,_ ~r.:,£.:i:~'v ~.•Y."-•'f „< rl .-tY Jqe ...$05 962 74 C .:v-~"!~-•~.£.:~~+Sdc .::c::a7.>.,s:i :i ::ia"s r'r..€.:C...;x.ri~.-„'F.-.R.A t L ~..u...-~._Fr :.:..s:ni~.f, F ".z~."'-':•Y '!I ~:: •e:;~}~2s<.::'E'i y r ;~•>t:.>, --a•c -}.:9 -~.. " one .„w .f :1 _-4 3e :.~.~:~y `•:...:-e `a ;~--r.}'~„•a t ~':-.,~,,T~=..,_:1isa :-..:,.'.....:~tM,•?<.-~,. r..... ,.'k .:~~...... -~ti$^i?i>,. ~.-s,is,.S%xr?....:;: •.::.:'?ii"a;~:.,.. x .:,t `c ..•,:,,?t..;u..,,....E 't :.,,.-a .-.a ...;... ~asYi'• tL .<,~r .'"£~..:ba...„_><.9;«t,3• ':~•V<:t ~C is -:I~•'TIT .. €C $i..s 4 ,J7 t ':kl-•-.'..a•~i}{~. *3.G.g .i~1f>:9{~' a ~..s ;>;4Mks~f'fit ::'_'f!'.~5^t .~.-°£.(J'_. z F..s2 ii -+n:.~i t .E :.C:'t °:,14. .. :4.<XC€`,::{z :f,.:..5 •>,.°KStr'".4,yx•.t u,5~. ~,_. a'S'C•Y£'z'a:.,a.:aiw ..t f'~.• k :'vvl _.S~~}j:};•xl -„r cY~:r ' r O g o 'i'^..~e•.L''}_.€{j~FtBdIAY 15i.CRi 5~~3~..#!~tlim.Y r 1 2oV_...x s ~.-~s ...?'t t lSl i-IS-S E :n st• 9 s FF'"y9 q~~a pxTfkW }t :r T F SA}S z:TSl ...;Iui1i's . x "` r. _._~.x9~F>...;.{[}.-FFrE3SFES{t€.: ES Fet~.rtii°r9yF t y aif ."3~a ii ,6'.x-:'E23i Rf E .~..s°.>.,.3~,-±r,t nw F : ~..--Cd ,i :ua«m -.t6 '.1€..5" »•;...ig 'iit£;..~~N°E~F 2 ,x ?FETx .-F :n rs EE yt>sv.. r ~t €EY`x t}`i^~'t''e ii s.~3 a~:..<L~kESYi ;.aE .fiS~~aR£Tda'i s P3.L5FS F 3-rR ~:yP53a~9Y#vrz `:.1 t„'.F{p E}•-,t w VIEW FROM KENTUCKY $TAEET .TOWARDS NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING 3 TAFT STREET VIEW f 7 WFs,YFYi;.WSJ'-T.•ES'.:e<aifxe=sU~..h':,'MFBizg;-; F"-Y:4js}.~itr ._ Ig e3'[E'yi-sT4 £tr §.;,1'S,Y.L.:.•.{Xd"C4>i .9.:^^«••E :`F;.^:M:Z:;^}~i><cj}<E(I , < III,•....'is rSiS .j.4F ;f -e ,1.r II ^r~.l t.'t wSt[NR'4£x w . af.,m 1.,w.F^<.~«.fit,RFx ,f3 j E`,.to-F "-32,,.~;.:, l/i..\.:.e.•~5+:«v-'«'•~•~•~^Et~aYrnZg~Y.Y ;¢3 ~3Fj~p~.ry~~..}Y..~^t i '`,F' FY'+F•,E i«'^~i 1°q ,W;~yyE<.L . £}i',~.'~t~9 }"_ Y~'""..,•~.~..iy'f ... >» , 'ge :SY'-E..Saw "~,{a»".5~.~J /',.•...:."..E <.is <-...'t?,.m.9 ..wtx ..-°••,Yai£fr ~>~5.a'H><•.:~.. ~,~}/,'~!.'^,J9 ..- ;~'yy,'..-~,..•::1 t,hZ 'it-.€}3~S'{,~f E3,{p.,,Y,t.,......<iinFRE _<,-.,.,:,..tt .§' i<ii :..:.:.~_..."-^Y'~:..-:..,-Y ..'., ^i,Mfiw.<~., ,•-^3 .Ys%4{CY6i't»Y'....~.f:,.,•.~:.. ,:.,.-.,.ESSx~iyy :'r•.c.:,>a9.i..L-t„°;`.^.i£t:».<..I :V:e .~«EE€p.::.FSk '1 .::., -:.:..,~,,.„i':f:.~.Y'x:`i ~... __,_Bits ,._.'9K R .yam.-xE>Ees W§3..,.__q }~:}S1T''.i,EYSg <A .3F y":°irt ...,tEtA;®M.wc •veaN ;dY 56j::4€#"W'M93j`Y"C~IS3Y ..yj<"iSt31II~e'3IEYS;2S S ...y ~.-I3. 83 .~6f ..:r}',.'Y ~:S..i I~°~L'F~Y.~,E]~ ~•i F^,'~,3 {Y•~L qy •: y }.~.6 E.t ,~Y~i<,~y t,..F5>S .}5[F~~£I;FFy{4`Yi3`4-W..~.ELd 'yT,Y£I~nf~}4 <3t-w~i~y ..ll ~,.a "'R i,<.td`fE '~,3~:"+s t'~,~".:FFE`~P.SF ::E`tT«•~.'<,3~'FB :t3t aYfjl }j~•~~sYf 't1'fG€Ywet«f+'`:<K':~~.0 ...f.E3J £,}~E:».9 :<j`~`., ~} '8c ...:igA F... Y ~t~. 3 I)3.na'.~ •,•°_>'"",4j;..Y -~_{j~'~•SY'~E3 ,.3'}-'i .4.A37`E 'S ~v .L{5 .:..F3 S`[>°-S tt •}q :5 :R°.g,i 34te':r-2...i"L7r ._'RS',P(3 ::~y,'~,,•y~~.#7e:{t .5~..:<.3 ..3 :.>: Y,.5 w-"<ff..:<F .~;p.R~'€<..L'}•R'F.3Yr }»S .('~_<.3[Y .. 2 • <S'H(,F3 .ef"E t ••I ~£3y~Wy}.,. W F,E,..,~5£.y~F£E -x•js ~£.<..Y ~f ~#Y"€:i°i~;i ;i :F~~'~=''3,~¢`,>.!t..:...1».si><64,•,Ef ki'.'<<<36i ..,.3 .j 4~t`.t.:E >'CY`l"''W4.«Lt't~Y_.£13.".:,:3 t s ~ - 4~Sia1~~Ors, x .az t<:z.:S:R=, •.£^.:. `):..~.t•LE:Y»,a•...».yy5 .,.,,...-T'.~;..<~.:-:..L,:.::.'::5.::,,.,.sX .^f,..aJ:....y -:£'>'tY,'°i~'1,,:'.,.`<5[.y.:. ,..i~-._.'...-:.:....z:i ::x :::-,...~sr ...._.<.:..rSFa ---..::,~4 ...k .:~.~s,,:<x .,.<; h.'.-ia0.`.•i,l~t,,::._!•h:fFE,-'f i.-°i„ t6,:.:,r ex}.•:'s •:=E„x .::..( E ~. F :-..tt~~ C.:. a ~..~,3 y~.,~sF •x :..„.mF}~r_t ,~..,.<.-..:4y':ta,....,r ,.:..s ,e .+•L~•-__.:o-•a;1z...E [.d 3•.9,:L :gg..,.•$t3 ...£.3S x ..S'<9 °:S',Y .,<_.}e s .<.e?a,~.rry•.,rs{€~3 Et£S:•'I:r'~S E4 E€~'~„'~'3~t ~ie iw'i'r.~£x :a '-':y"'~,~H ;.I:€•£i .19~:..s!::~j~~::}j 'i E.»,">xyy.~.'{y~533'~3~4:'ip~r•`;j..<.i..iT,^~, {'~~£9t~<e}~G.F .n.It :}E 95`%«SI S .E,I }}fi.,.2 h,g 8!}h...y }9••°'t£x t'{y£t ~{:'}E I 4~'.3 ~..j1S'•3G'e7I!'"e :~:t1}nS„„££,,ii,,f'J .}ssi ;i :£:t,.i(:ft;}:'EI<}t}3NFx: ~5H..<..?Y •,< _t <-.~8 f YL:t ».'''~R"..T,F .- L•::1A H5F}r~u .£<&aµFL`.:n5£•`f.:tCtF n•E y .F.~ 1 4:33 3 SFE3 WW,, ~s9 Z'S .C'£'~ } , 1 4 .»...-F~wlx:<M `:..,.£:f~}S3e-'t': A• ~~.7.}<~!~R E• ....~..,.,•~'.:<'.n•<_:".'.. r ...:1 •~7 ...Y v::~!•~.~33~e ~<.~,:.....:-....<.c i:1 :..sn4 ST .,Lffi u'E,t•^F ;<Fu S3SIE£.rv~°,'~.FEi.<.n ..frsr1 ..'f-<.<.,..`«t__ ,~.c...~.w„.::#r t".'-:Y ,.; ~_._..:~u....:'.~'r}'r ;;':_4 ':..,,y 5.~. i 4 . w b ..~~),.. <S-_. _..i.-..':.v .~-1!;!'~.,.: •n :..... i......v ,..y {i .i„-,....:.':>:.:...s -,<..-[vt f r --t5..z..,'_ •<:y}{y ~l`.S` ~~p-}x'~vnaSiWk ~..n <~sro ~:t~3.~.<"kM .k..s i>i'.s€1E,.~.xx .»3 !'}%.'..F 3 (.<' ^4Y:£.3::.°J _a .pp <~a %j:T:A..~tc <..>.»JY'6s ry i "lSf:E°._.--[E .~x ~::q :`~..:S£~iff y ,t£tF::.. •_}. is°d :.n.<f <'Ft ~dY ,.£Gi~ES ..C»:.:f:....~'`t,»..g .. A.°...uy€i LCb,.~.rR ...~i.~t ~.~e}L r ~3 ,.,<.W.fi~dry..,'»i3i~x:'`•.»:... £>«--.E .,£%3C}tE >. <~ ~,d,...F <.1`££p<•:`:ii5£.~.<",~.•w<' «6'.<- L'Y x S'f:«<.}9>.N}.,.<}~~u :'S£I,II:i:~'-:'-_~M.,.S:.yS F'i t.-c ..n.._.L3.:,....:'.: '-..r'r,-:~...:::. ,.'.: 'R ,.i~#.i I:<.: ',;.Ja;r.,.,•..r;. sT :_.„,:T!.Y,..„..::?::.:E;...............j T ,.,~roxS q tt tu&.j1SF<~tE : 1F.3g$.(£y e°sE e"f(E,t'<• W.~'.R f( tl >r"~'SL^.=,.FPft E »~ (;i ,t}5}{SS£}}<3"JAjy~yE.t`°»'.C`T'£t}€Et%' »,`.<,.E .°X,'.9°}€ <~>£:t i!3?<.>4YG3~Frti?E.+•.+.+Se'>"..n.}E.:SrJE•<£:S.`SYt3^.3 :5`....<n.'•i {l ,.£..3 F,^.,<"i'£.e .<,.F..y<3P.m»»s°0S.<3~N. y~..:'"u>°..•p m t a4 T £F .„E <.„...,::::`::... ,(..,.:'~_...9 -.I ...<{{xa .,<.<v ,,..-I .w .:y ,3~1 ':''..:.x,•r,-., ,.t'::£:..,.:..>,..d;:..~..:',,'.~r {..,~T:.W ~ ~.it L..,,~.. ,i•.n.°fir,.<'s..€`..;„...:vim•••••<.•:.Yi'.:;:;`.'::„.~s<>C '1x?``r.,(s}/:•y ,.<~-`'..~ -:},~,x: ,.,65E j ,'i ..i ,..',x t•:s,.,;...::S';:i-:: .,(£S<g .<~y Y 3,.,~•.j jj6£;£'.t>.S£P'E3<,<E.,?'i..E .£:s9c tTEft:,::::.•b .x ....f G-.t .~:.....!.;.:.g+~is~.-i -t is I :,-f xwax :.,:.:°xt:...,:q ..._„.>;;,.'aas ..x ._'!:r5 •'~L-.y°:;TE1'~...:-y ..i .:f^,.,f :;F ~'d,YC y. Y'tSS .:'I::•;%s:i:.Ef:.n,5::.?i:..E tt1£E.<'4<`E }<art':::F.s 1n1•<n=`F<:`..:"<~:E'}t'<.<,Y w ..{~18y 5..•E,•"'-Yj y..t .i.$•<.~/S'::S.S::`T .} • 1.„~,~a Y..3v'c Eb^=k ...-:ir,€~Eif>«Ee ...).)aR`d =)::'~~`~t<`'9L°~E 'S (C""l.f .7 s .,d~,.,.~-.~t ®-.... &~T~+'t .C1b .•.{xFrY-ERt ..•'}~._is ...F.:'e•~' 4 h'- ~:`''.isTi s ~f'PF{*3•.`~''' ~ n`a ;~ ,x ,d h,. ~~iKj s,~'-'~.'_~':~F -L •: f >~.:.: i't3>a.~ •..::~.'. 4T .t,ryy,}.':;; ^::<i 3}7 ...~~x ..,t f ...y.i f .,rt 1 '_I _._ ,,:f/Y . 2 f --'3i .. i,r-.--~•-5 ,,.:4 4-:.~.'.N~^?45..^.".:•7•: it~•G .-t .~.,(}{J i 4~~y -..1i~`{f <~~ ~'l.j~'_..k k'=Sis'Y~-y•Q ;S L3~~'"~+aa [~a,"--._!'::E:::.u+S ~' d ~....:, iY 4Y •'~r ~i ~~~~.$..F +Q r'X r ICY 3~l.:..,.J ..'..3 LY'HY/..•a'P.)YS•,,{...:ER [..•-.,.f£d ,+."<~~Y,fSCt. If`~''„"c roa ....~aF .'>::^:cs..•:4,x>~i.-':'~':: r>.1'~r.r "[.~'> I .r -_-_.is •::.;r:`E 3:£t ,,cSi ::><.y c:>;.:Yr?,:<~~. '~E'_, }it<{.-s,.,...F x.]':: -,i .dS .mtu •.rRj T ...111W . s _..rye •.emis^'t"'-:i .-i • . /.-.£.3t ~'{}~3.YyYI !<'£~.n}::.,,'. ~nM.f.y ',..<, E ~...<.,_-<Ru,~,,..?a;`+F"~s '..A+.+!~~....,.,..z <i~~~s ~:.<s€: `~.x yP.R.®F3 -T s`.~~a~i#`•#F .Y3 E_~F'~I r>~r i BeX -:~'(iF~~f£.3~'i£2 .fiSEV•L't°y''~3!g3L,L _~>A <~{. -m.:nwxat:i . . ....3.«:#:,Ft .>,.«.ix+!`~,_':.y,.:.::''.s •.. 'R Hitt':£:iMk; -~<_.<~aesk3~ ':.^,gw.n'.,'731 t:,:::.?:x::.::s::...grsiaW.>.1!nF•~:i'ii..- r< Y ~-......-0?t~#~91E ~J >>N hNY •.."'tee:w, A~~,-...S'n'.WR -'Ire-y~.'bap :"`::-•::::a •E et£:'yS~„`Y Fes,.t ~}•n`<.!}.€ F.t ,~e f 1 :i iEt 1j s :,.A,y3,~~st°?3 '3"3 ju,Ya$,x }{,'`jF ,-3F °„}s,s ks :xDnT tttFW6 zNn -xL,.'.,,,-._..-•'"~e''-"~E-Zi :::>..:..-.~?_.. -., x •-.::q.EWCxF;W-,`,'T "xY .iv :.';nL .:E yiYS~..iF."I:E~~.r tz i:s :.SY,-'r5••'•s?;z°~'•"d I }•~::_-'':--.:otsi .<,<:.,;.-~~'<:,.0 ~..:":.;^°tx 'F:{':e~<p .~,3 ~1 .:.`C~.,,~~.xt Y .'..,§I,•E .E'8°~a {<iH <3}S .!':W I~4 S t.E,«Y Fx:P°}£?FS.~tzF~k'C ,~...€'~i.>e',(a*°:ir.rs ..!~xaR°"®,'-S :'.'E .g:t-a~.:.s•A:Is }i;z~'<_~~N ::>:'.q i s -r h yY1yy515 ~:A;}f - <~~~~T~~..-,_,,'..;;:i :..°ga.p,.n p TfEssms :n :a.?A.<:x ::-F~c ::;it<~E-i :'3"°<<Ak G<W a jT S <.<SF,.i.a.I,,.jX .<„F.E:Y .<•e .<.,,,';.Fa ;S-s 'W tr .."F S{, ,m Y i•e'° `~£:.RW .y'.2 x(>.~..~~-£ E5 }q}W +CI NO Y6y-~~y.."".,-..«F R .i ;y .,<•~.-:fS 5 ,F..,.M.-.ESF 'S .:,..'.'.,b.L ::A,~L'e"::,Y F'r•::::::,,I ::;:.v::£:y:;t -<`^- >~I£f .-E;.~R ,'I':•F f F 0°.SS e 3 __rA --''~: Y ,s~-,-u ..:::: -:. ^`SY: iE .O£SS::>..~~~:y=#':,.r -T a<F ~`'---'•...~ t•x:s.>!,:.sP';Sl~ua _F •3 ..,xm,.~,_y,£s ~<t _jj q eu E saR,a sFS•mWWW .E„F .~~F,~W Ea Y.R#tom.£~t1'u."'~-L•F`„£a-.35~f» Fi'd xta?a>-~''Yq e t . Y x^`W 5:ig': R: SE 4#S . a. Y:`. "'e.F.FE .,.rt,~Y.•'---a Yse'`Fw >,. x .-a-<•{-:....•-'.1».st .._;%I°'3='::.'^<E•~" "°3,,..ti t}.4~v„y..~i~-..'•S'P E.tom ..R'['"--_'g,3S.°„EEYft. £M.:.3 f..R'C'; `#F*. e to ~'~}.E~~~:~f'f,:-~))U».f~.<yp.,L°s~:£Jx~,-~.,~'~..':....-: •-..~~5~~'-~,`Y2:.°mz +~~, -`:<~+3.s3,.~„~..IE .i # _n.w.w.T,^E:..'Y.5.. ~~-. _ _§h_.`rte...,,.~<__s':'2'a'.sE•;-L+~:: 3E_2 yki 'li.ZfR <~'Lt .t<3{A<y S3 a:1t£F F!~~}:„i~^f ~'tw ~^£Y`# ~z SS4't t'•>i~~y <.?,i::. W- x D .xit€#~~~ t is:`3 F~SY{G "E':> ~{ ~ g jSS~~,~+i 7 ~,:m'n a .9 ,` ~Y;'3}:~' KENTkJCKYAVENUEVIEW 4 VIEW-FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OFTAFfANDKENTUCKY 12 n t_XiOY AX,44 Dtssftp i s MAX iiX!i375':L1 Dc ;.p Carriageway in accordancewitlf lacy€,'tegut9fions E1,...._L,..1 .S iii' KLAUS MUL7iPARK!NG NC . aas2aoe3 s .vursr ;Niys ra B4s48 9Jfi Prodsict'_D eta Slack Pa r .0622 pifaansionsc. 338aP.-Smny=dr.*Ie _ S ~r dnrd nt.non Nag n "hie`fnrf ;pOvinno,.r ca r ~r +.'~.'.!?f . of0.t e\ aai 122E. ARRFLLAGAS.1N '1'A 8A1t8ARA C.11.IFORNIA 5A In 1 805 962 z'>a o For dividing tires mating mna .lgh 4'k 4'.(!cr Ans.). $$rarer sAl,A2aridA3m.sibe eocitedi lJ Ufa door sapplet tft'le .ntaghfisfpOW, N.eMai, Alicia height for tail uppor Oaring3g spaceMamas =wain*. 0 R1*g:Mostpachtsease-obese , isrc (=rood pWioan :rasa of €r3 tcS.ltYfEBi ie'-51G6. 04'vide .et!.+sstyetworrman !atadgeoft fiare Eg T ERj Attention: For cars *VI of 17'4' We : PVeiOn 1:'mart to0ar W4" j, max i„'s?;1t5), suat pl*fa nva'3i h Only SfadrPaafer0132a7€S51195'ES spaseabie_5mialr> g ...... Hochhauser MatteriPjIPL-M -WW1,0 ARCHITECTURE ANb?1 AN1MlNO RHEINZINK CLADDINGEMI :r _eu.o,elwr `~Mew ,as.=. M 112'CDXSHEATHING .~~.61 661 AM1A~f,♦'.,«..,„IM.R.~a.t .==...tee E. 3C9*+*S aaASANTA BARBARA 8 CALIFORN 93101 805 v6z z~ae DENSGLASS-EXTERIOR DRYWALLX.9o.R66I.a WAMO9 .1P 6 998 ~ri„t&•'•~ CEMENTITIOUS SIDING PLAN PANEL CLADDING AT SILL HEAD DETAIL RHEINZINK BUMP-OUT DETAIL 5 GREEN WALL SYSTEM DETAI L aRam®IaturoaMO :;=t .r.:10,861.1fir.r.6.8 , "Impii o6s.■Bmwl Y93 -Mv■s .xR.RS Iona wnM~nmMn Mme ~;;•i :i.-Mm6MDOaniMW1a9MMlala+i !M ;<=—.enM 6MCPIL '! 6am:rz Z aw 6 euwl mi /'"V gii+•l lf;1.:^. ~~:.a }-•:~S •:'s :--nf memnme wxruwasa1MMaW1momaceatnec (( ••e.~.amanpataE1Yb S. •nmoMMaa II O oemasiuAxW Amaaxw.R R■vRnf 18866.1A.R.R,W.R91AR41.111 mu. TYPICAL STOREFRONT UP-DOWN LIGHT lie TYPICAL RAKE VENT AT VOLUME ROOF METAL OVERHANG DETAIL .'-.2 _r~~_=r mwa walwlmwi+xsssm 81.10Pm M06911W lb106MIRTOwonl BPRIMR swu.aWS eRWIM o°rauu n IRIM19.911H n e ac Awuu p 009Ma.031 .9.1x W14181M■NIW Itbxn1 MMMW6,66 MI,R9.6elr Assn «cs.Rwa L ='~.66666t b6YJIW0EGl pGb4WRYYMI6.6 I 'WAArt .mi0a1.e ..T 1 MutM6 -rrs6o,1.0 .1601819fN..Ri 6BVIOaslnlryV. 10.LOB.M9012ilozoBomace TYPICAL BALCONY DOWN LIGHT 111 INTERSECTION OF RHEINZINK AND WOOD SIDING x-^x 7 RAT BAR RAILING SYSTEM DETAIL 'S kmrw nc'°aa astw .1'116 6'WDMIppEMni Y nm.6,6 a gaelpRsl.o gym-- CaA.W.WIORalW21141 M3 lOMM.1 ROWS MtW6.WV»HOWWWIaE xm¢UM SIIIDAIDEI9993Wagueea.M10 taWWIWIOUWb60.16C.111011128 tl~M1: MMRWIYW.4M615[- N-c 661iw1681691 w99e19.+.4 .6u1■18010kA9WWAla• 1611W.ninu. 6Ypm. QIORplKM IN A9)a CEMENTRIOIS WALL SIDING DETAIL nrr 112 PANEL CLADDING AT WINDOW HEAD DETAIL 6•-+•P (8 CORRUGATED METAL OVERHANG DETAIL a u1.R„BIMSr-'.: q 47.• VINEpi SUCH AS .. -CLEMATI S-LILAC VIN E MEDIUM 5HRU8 SUCH A5 :-CAPE RU511SITCIPED FORTNIGHT ULY-DEER GRASS-CREAM DELIGHT NEW ZEALAND FLAX -VAPJDGATFD MOUNTAIN FLEA GFA55UIC: GROUNDCO'VERSUCH AS :-OEM SEDGE -ICE DANCE SEDGE -NEW ZEALAND FLUX 115C KSEDATE-NEW ZEALAND PLAY SWEE EMISr KENTUCKY AVENU E d.0 0O!aes_s e:aa-e_a_o_o ozm_s a=a-o_e_* * o 'I FLOWERING PERE.NWA S SUCH AS:-LILY OF THE NILE-SIG RED KANGAROO EASY PLANT LEGEND STREETTREEAra:r n,Arom'AlN»a Etae! Red Mq,ln ACCENT,' TREELernn un .Hensn'Pa+rmE Fam y" TM 1 Fen :nt P:n•.y Yedb ~ UPWGIITTECeArbut-r. w-Jn / 5trawbeny GE.-M,du.1..me LARGE SPECIMEN PLANTCervbe.33 hadae I Eanlbo Oyra dC'ordylme a1G-31n INA Step,'! Emk Stnpn 03,.:.wmCAnlyl-ee S etrs ENE/Ceet lineCerdyms enngade/ Ce elykre NIEDIite SHRUBCigndn:tttalum teteeeem ;Cttc RvlrDsetes q-."d,lh nst 'Vxmgata'/ 5tnped Fnrtnght LtyMuhlenbergv ugens / Deer G•.eMF'i»em.em tonne C e.-, OnlrJi,t' f Cream Sir?New e31.MM PIt.Phm'mwm Al JaMer' 1 Vanyap :d Mop»ra:n Fla SCULPTUALFLIESCypcwepanesDwarf term'!SIGN Gene PalysenE eeatmn 3yenv13/EtntW 1Junew patrm; / CAL'Anw Gray 'Ge?Ltyet nonden .atio' Canyon Petee' I?t ?US,. 5133 Fr:M334nb:rgu eaprllae -VI CE Cinud' !'NAM- Meri t Grr s Sansear/a Lni eats!Sanuwer a FLOWERING PEREtedALSAnapaethea 51nrm Cbud!Litt of the IAN:..u•Srua.ews a 'DI PAM' T Diq Reel S.mgarce Paw Ftwmiwm •Emk Spratt': See Zealand Plan 'Jack Sprats ' SUCCULENTSSawnm'Cwr/E.o.m.Aeomwa u 'JAIy Gieu /Jolly Green Aeenna nAcomumt'Xnn'1L33 AnoCeet.a.Cove ' DS,e lee 'Hen aM hotsEcheIt nekgaesl Merte.: 5newbas GRASSLIKE GROUNIDCOVERCalet gthee / Ehw 5edgnC.Ana a'Ire Dance' / kw Date SmigePhormwm beat 'JAek SpraC ' I W:w Z+:aland FluFimrmeee tenmr 'Sweet Mr,! Ncw Zealxll Flu PIDEERING G>;OUIIDCO'VERPyap.mthv+'Peter Pan 1 Dual Lly A I sac LA , Antareptaas Carpet Dusk 'Jx~mJated Orehnne'e nN■a/Ind.Meet 5:n+xbeny :'RTESp~maba t n-wIse nn 'Ae.Lache "1 MeM Eenrgn .ae Clnmate Stem LS BE.gab C)OUNLIUGreee :01A MW' NWLT:.Teuv. ,SuAlK Ea .s.'C TE;•gab; p PtR .^..A.nWC4ti,s,cA.•mve IS;AeY tee;m'i31rvN DAVID R . SLACK & ASSOCIATE S S. HS EMI MINIM WI = L i 1 t ir GROUND LEVEL Scale: 1" =10'-0'r CD Attachment 3 July 7, 2012 Hi Pam and Doug, Please find the updated/revised design for the project based on my discussion with the neighbors . Thanks, Era n Several points : 1.Townhouse Unit B106 has been removed and relocated into Building A at the corner locatio n that was recommended by the Architectural Review Commission . 2.The Commercial Square Footage has been reduced down to 3,149 SF (previously approved a t 3,900 SF). 3.The northern face Townhouse Unit B105 is now approx . 42'-6" from the northern side of th e existing alley . 4.The existing wall adjacent to the alley will remain in place as requested by the neighbors . It i s possible that it may need to be cut back at its nearest point to the intersection with Kentucky t o comply with City visibility standards, but this would be minimal . 5.In terms of overall mass, the removal of Townhouse Unit B106 represents an approx . reductio n of 18,400 Cu . Ft. The additional bedroom added to the corner of Building A at the 3 rd floo r represents an increase of approx . 5,225 Cu . Ft . Overall, there is a net reduction in mass of approx . 13,115 Cu . Ft . This is a substantial reduction in mass from what was approved and i s largely the result of voluntarily reducing both the commercial and amenity square footage . 6.The handicap accessible Townhouse Unit has been re-designated as Unit 8101, which now ha s access from the elevator via an internal access way . This eliminated the need for a ramp alon g Kentucky Street and will result in additional street side landscaping . 7.All setbacks, parking requirements, building heights, still comply with the zoning cod e requirements of the CN zone . The following are the revised building statistics : Commercial Floor Area :3,149 S F Amenity Space :280 S F Residential: (5) Townhouse Units in Building B @ 1,680 SF ea . (1) Townhouse Unit in Building A @ 1,525 S F (1) Affordable 2 Br . Unit@ 700 S F Parking Req . 3,149 SF @ 1/300= 10 .14 10 Space s (6) 2 Br . Units x2=12 Space s 1 visitor space 1 Spac e Total Req .23 Space s Parking Provided 10 Spaces in Lift System 10 Spac e 13 Spaces on grade 13Space s Total Provided 23 Spaces 1 Motorcycle Space (in addition to 23 spaces ) Parking includes 2 Accessible spaces and 3 compact car spaces). PH1-33 _____ —__„ELI Y_AX. E J _.. (D.DIRECTIONAL SIGNAG E FOR PARKING NOTE: SEE SHEEFA22 FOR SITE PLAN DIMENSIONS HochhauserBlaster II ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING unman sIBBmmli 1 111111 1--------- 122 R. ARRELLAGA SANTA El ARBARACALIFORNIA 91101 805 062 274 6 I I 1 4 ..ems .. 4 COMMI E SPACE2ISERE I 1ium ii Ammo ] mm i_ E)DIREC 0 FOR P IIAL SIGNAG E G fIRSITLEOR!ARMPIT 1 11'PROPERTY UM- ROHM LIRE FLOOR PLAN-BASEMENT l 1 .1 All ;:j ,IIST. K ENTUCKY AVENUE___ ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING _~R2eE~?s.y~a u J np en I p.Auuum uu uuu111E11 1III611~IIIAEAIA muumuu muumuu'~ 114 4 1111ru1~K~Iluulll PROPERTY LIN E ROPER!Y LI HE H H FLOOR PLAN-1st FLOO R H W H 122 E . AARL•LLAGASANTA BARBARACALIFORNIA ORIG I805 962 2746 122E. ARRLLLAGASANTA BARBAR ACALIEURN7A 9310 1AUS 962'2746 MC1Wy O f San Luis OBISpO Attachment 4 RECEIVE D Date'.z vfia z SLO CITY CLER K Filing Fee : $261 .00*V , - Paid ' NM 'REFER TO SECTION 4 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEA L 1 .in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1,Chapter 1 .20 of the San Luis Obisp oMunicipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision able : /fle-ii/7.-6 7z},'4L ? Viet-0 /)1T)1r'S/o/V (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2 The date the decision being appealed was rendered:0NCLl R t O `) 3 . The application or project was entitled :i2y/6 -T-eel 7-eeer652/al 5'6 -eq.) 4.I discussed the matter with the following City staff member : m ~ji((/on !, let/.. (Staff Member's Name and Department)(Date) 5.Has this matter been the sutlect of a previous appeal'? If so, when was it heard and by whom : SECTION 3 . REASON FOR APPEA L Explain specifically what actions you are appealing; and why you believe the Council should consider you rappeal, Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal . You may attach additional pages, Ifnecessary. This form continues on the other side . Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Cod e Title Phone Fa x SECTION 1 .APPELLANT INFORMATION Mailing Address and Zip Cod e WS) 5-4 3 -OPhone Fax PHI-39 Attachment 4 Reason for Appeal continued .milCucA:tec,tti.A.ze.. ~e v t c w G',r,~„u aA.s c-r~ ~`2/i o -4-j !8, 2 D 1 A.d s.c ffi ,~+- /MAU f )IA,,,,...c,..w...r/r'-..414-144 .:~ 7,' 2 .. . a / da,”--eiceP .Imr/11tt_..A:....A _/AAPA i_«4;.i~./L /1a -I I ..I-L...1 I.4 1 /_' 4 ..AL ..4A-,Alt ~ AA GIs ... l to A..4&.J /..Ka/iJ /.../.s /.II /,. _ I ,.%A 41/i.~.I ./ -AAA .A .e i i This item is hereby calendared for cc ; City Attorney . City Manage r Department Hea d Advisory Body Chairperso n Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 8/09 Attachment 5 Date Receive d 01W or .san 1uis of ispo Filing Fee : $261 .00 *Paid \G 5 N/A *REFER TO SECTION 4 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEA L 1.in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1,Chapter 1 .20 of the San Luis Obisp o Municipal Code (copy attached), i hereby appeal the decision of the : A'-Li fievteu~(Oa 0:1 5 S(o1'1 (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed ) 2.The date the decision being appealed was rendered :3i.x"e... ,240/2. 3.The application or project was entitled :i 1-10 lA-14 S ree f(ARC—50-05) 4.I discussed the matter with the following City staff member : arul t ce i I eovrin rvEl"~y ,ii(gpntu+.Ikp+ on Sulu.S ur t ZS 20 IZ (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5.H, s this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? if so, when was it heard and by whom : 1114 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEA L Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider you r appeal, Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal . You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the-other side. Page 1 of 3 PH1-4 1 SECTION 1 . APPELLANT INFORMATIO N Res5elen4-$-tom Qut ;tei c■Ie glibc h d.s Name Phone Fa x JQr.\a(Row&. FO,I2 .e,v S1IL.B, CA°i4o(, Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Cod e h t e > i sow 5 q c f Z („,JlA Title Phone Fa x /2 6o1 ,S t,,o g 4 a Mailing Address and Zip Code Attachment 5 Reason for Appeal continue d &A,- , This item is hereby calendared for cc : City Attorney City Manager Department Hea d Advisory Body Chairperso n Advisory Body Liaiso n City Clerk (original) Page 2 of 3 PH1-4 2 8/09 Attachment 5 We are hereby supporting the Alta Vista Neighborhood in appealing the (5-2) decision of the Architectura l Review Commission (ARC) rendered on June 18, 2012, approving a mixed-use project at 1340 Taft Street . The property is zoned Neighborhood-Commercial and is in a Medium Density Residential (R-2)Zone. It is our belief that the ARC erred in their determination that the proposed 3-story project is compatible with th e primarily single-story homes in the neighborhood . Although the project has been scaled down considerabl y since it was heard by the Planning Commission and now meets maximum height and minimum developmen t standards, the size,scale and mass remain too large for the area . it is, also, our belief that impacts of th e design such as overlook, ingress/egress, parking and noise were not adequately considered , We believe the ARC decision must be overturned because it is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines , specific zoning requirements in the Municipal Code and applicable General Plan goals and policies,including but not limited to : LAND USE ELEMEN T LU 2.2 .10 Compatible Developmen t LU 2 .2.12 Residential Project Objectives PH1-43 Attachment 6city Of san LUIS OBISpO Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-321 8 Eran Field s ICON AT SL O Wells Fargo Cente r 333 S . Grand Avenue, Suite 420 0 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 SUBJECT : ARC 50-09 : 1340 Taft Stree t Review of a mixed-use project with retail space and residential unit s Dear Mr . Fields : The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 18, 2012, approved you r request, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, as noted in the attache d resolution . The decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the Cit y Council within 10 days of the action . Any person aggrieved by a decision of .th e Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk . Appeal forms are available in the Cit y Clerk's office or on the City's website (www .siocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal i s $261 and must accompany the appeal documentation . The Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if constructio n has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period . On request , the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension . If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7168 . Sincerely , Pamela Ricci, AIC P Senior Planne r Attachment : Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 cc :County of SLO Assessor's Offic e Icon at SLO, LL C 9300 Wilshire Blvd ., Suite 33 3 Beverly Hills, CA 9021 0 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities .PHI-44Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 . June 22, 2012 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO . ARC-1002-1 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW . COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO TH E ICON PROJECT . CONTAINING 7 RESIDENTIAL UNITS &3,900.SQUARE . FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE PROPOSED FOR PROPERT Y LOCATED AT 1340 TAFT .STREET (ARC 50-09 ) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obisp o conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Lui s Obispo, California, on March 5, 2012, for conceptual review of Planning Application ARC 50 - 09, a mixed-use project with 7 dwellings and 3,900 square feet of commercial floor area an d continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions an d WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obisp o conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Lui s Obispo, California, on May 7, 2012, for the purpose of considering revised plans for fina l approval and continued the hearing with direction to the applicant for additional information an d details ; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obisp o conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Lui s Obispo, California,on June 18, 2012, for the purpose of considering revised plans for fina l approval ; an d WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law ; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo ha s duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, an d evaluation and recommendations by staff at said hearings . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission o f the City of San Luis Obispo as follows : SECTION 1 .Findings . As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate for a mixed-use project and will b e compatible with surrounding development . The revised project design maintains consistency with the Community Design Guideline s for infill development and is appropriate for the site and its surroundings . The proposed project makes good use of a deteriorated and unattractive site that has no t been viable for many years and creates an attractive and efficient site development . 4. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, Infill Development Projects, Sectio n 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, PH1-45 Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 1340 Taft Street, ARC 50-09 Page 2 Attachment 6 SECTION 2 .Action .The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approva l to the mixed-use project (ARC 50-09) with 7 dwellings and 3,900 square feet of commercia l floor area, with incorporation of the following conditions : Conditions : 1 Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with th e project plans as amended and approved by the ARC . A separate, full-size sheet shall b e included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions an d code requirements of project approval as Sheet No . 2 . Reference should be made in th e margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed . Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval, must b e approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate . 2 The color board for the project buildings presented at the meeting was supported by th e Architectural Review Commission . Any modifications to the approved palette shall b e reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit . Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved a s part of working drawings . The sloping awnings shall match the vertical metal (n o corrugated siding). 3.All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to th e satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type o f application . A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a buildin g permit. 4.Plans shall clearly show the details of all windows and storefronts . 5.A sign program for the development including both tenant and site wayfinding and directional signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Developmen t Director with consultation with the Public Works Director regarding site directional signs . The Community Development Director may approve the sign program if it is consisten t with applicable sections of the sign regulations and is in keeping with the character an d context of the building . The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive o r out of character with the project . The Director has the authority to approve minor exceptions with the sign program for directional signs if there are compelling circumstances such as visibility and safety that warrant exceptions . If proposed, parking lot poles and fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and no t exceed 20 feet in height measured from the parking lot surface to the top of the fixture . The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17 .23 of the Zoning Regulations . Fixture and pole design shall complement the building architecture . 7 . The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on buildin g elevations included as part of working drawings . All wall-mounted lighting shal l complement building architecture . The lighting schedule for the building shall include a PH1-46 Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 1340 Taft Street, ARC 50-0 9 Page 3 Attachment d graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut-sheets shall be separatel y submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures . The selected fixture(s) shal l be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of th e City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17 .23 of the Zonin g Regulations . Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterio r wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if th e Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building . With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building , which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to b e placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately scree n them . A line-of-site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will b e adequate . This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements . 9.Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosures shall be included i n working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of th e Community Development and Utilities Departments . The ultimate design shall b e consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines and coordinate with the exterior design of th e buildings . 10.A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to th e Community Development Department along with working drawings . The legend for th e landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and tree s with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations o n plans . 11.The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall b e shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan . Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed . Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside th e building within 20 feet of the front property line . Where this is not possible, as determine d by the Utilities Director, the backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall b e located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping, and , if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall . The size an d configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilitie s and Community Development Directors . 12 Final approved floor plans shall clearly call out the approved bedroom count for each uni t following final approval by the Architectural Review Commission and note that alteration s to units to create additional bedrooms are not allowed . A covenant agreement signed b y the property owner shall also be recorded prior to final occupancy . If the project is subdivided, prospective owners shall be notified of this requirement . 13 . Decks and balconies within the project shall not be utilized for the storage needs o f individual units . However, outdoor patio furniture, potted plants and small barbecues ma y be placed in these areas . PH1-47 Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 1340 Taft Street, ARC 50-0 9 Page 4 Attachment 6 14.The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all commo n areas including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting , and landscaping in a first-class condition . 15.Individual tenant spaces and the overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderl y manner at all times . All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary . Fire 16.The 20-foot wide "public alley" shall be posted as a fire lane . 17.Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access . 18.For the commercial and garage portions of the project, a NFPA 13 system will be required . Based on more detailed information submitted with building plans, a final determination o n appropriate sprinkler systems for the residential portions of the development will b e determined . Housing 19.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordabilit y agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo for one 2-bedroom low-income affordabl e rental housing unit for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded against the title of th e property. Stormwater 20.The project will require the development, submittal, and approval of a Water Pollutio n Control Plan in compliance with California Green Codes 2010 and the City's Stormwate r Management Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit . This will include within the plan set(s) detailed erosion and sediment control plans and detailed locations of all stor m water control measures and/or best management practices to be used on the site during construction activities and for post construction site stabilization . Since this site ha d contamination issues at one time, the plans should include details on how soils will b e handled ; managed, contained and/or disposed of as necessary during the course o f construction . Transportatio n 21.Prospective residential tenants shall be notified of the project's stacked parking design an d advised that they should ensure that the on-site parking is adequate for their needs becaus e they will not be able to obtain on-street parking permits . 22.To ensure adequate visibility at the alley exit onto Kentucky Street, shrubs planted alon g the alley within 10 feet of the public sidewalk shall not exceed three feet in height a t maturity. PH1-48 Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 1 340 Taft Street, ARC 50-0 9 Page 5 Attachment 6 23.The project's Taft Street frontage shall be signed for no parking unless a sight distanc e analysis that demonstrates parking or loading can be accommodated is submitted for the review and approval of the Traffic Operations Manager . The sight analysis shall include vehicles exiting to Taft Street from the adjoining development located at 552 California . 24.The project is required to upgrade the adjacent City transit stop serving the site to bring i t into compliance with current City standards which includes a shelter, bench, and trash can . 25.The traffic impact report dated September 13, 2009, recommends that pedestrian acces s across Taft Street be discouraged near Kentucky and along the project frontage .Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit public improvement plans fo r the installation of pedestrian barricades and/or other measures approved by the Publi c Works Director to direct pedestrian crossings of Taft Street to the crosswalk at Californi a Boulevard. Installation of these improvements shall be installed prior to any occupancy o f the building . 26.Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6 .5 of the Zoning Regulations . Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly-visible location s that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space . Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances, and circulation for users i n compliance with manufacturers' standards . A minimum four-foot wide path of travel shal l be provided to all bicycle parking spaces . Additional bicycle parking (above what is required) may be proposed on the project frontages if adequate pedestrian circulation i s maintained and they result in no line-of-sight issues . Public Work s 27.The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan prepared b y a licensed civil engineer . The plan shall include all work within the public right-of-wa y including the alley . Drainage analysis may be required to justify the curb capacity for th e new driveway approach to the alley, alley drainage, and the transition from the alley into the parking garage. 28.The existing full depth driveway approach off of Kentucky to the alley shall be replace d per City Engineering Standard #2111 or other standard to the approval of the City . The approach shall include provisions for art accessible path of travel across or around th e approach . The plans shall clarify how the effective curb height will be achieved to contai n the street drainage . Otherwise, drainage calculations will be required to include the cur b capacity of the proposed approach . The proposed improvements shall be shown to contain the design storm within the Kentucky right-of-way in accordance with City Engineerin g Standards and the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual . 29.The alley paving shall be upgraded for the full width of the alley across the propert y frontage as a condition of the building permit . The civil plans shall clarify the extent o f alley paving beyond the property line as needed to transition to the existing pavement t o remain. PH 1-49 Resolution No . ARC-1002-1 2 1340 Taft Street, ARC 50-0 9 Page 6 Attachment 6 30.A concrete apron shall be provided in front of the trash enclosure to protect the pavemen t from repeated loading . The apron may need to be extended across the entire width of th e alley . 31.The soils report and civil engineering plans shall address the potential for the project t o intercept groundwater, Permanent or temporary de-watering shall comply with City an d state standards and permit requirements . Any permanent dewatering systems shall includ e piping systems that will discharge directly to the public storm drain system and not to th e gutter per City Engineering Standard 1010 .B . A permanent storm drain connection will b e subject to an annual storm drain connection fee in accordance with the fee resolution i n effect at the time of connection . 32.Access into the garage shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dow n sloping driveways . 33.The building plan submittal/civil plans shall show and note all signage and stripin g provisions as recommended in the final traffic safety report or as updated for this revise d project . 34.The building plans shall show compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards, Cit y Engineering Standards, and California Building Code . The parking garage shall includ e minimum heights, all space dimensions, striping, space widths, and clearances to sid e obstructions in accordance with City standards . The structural plans shall show th e location of all walls, shear walls, and columns in agreement with the dimensione d architectural plans . 35.The building plan submittal shall show all existing on-site and off site trees over 3" i n diameter . The plans shall include the diameter, species, and disposition . The off-site tree s located at 552 California shall be shown and noted for reference . The tree canopies shal l be shown to scale for reference . The plans shall clarify the extent of pruning necessary t o construct the proposed structure . A complete tree preservation plan shall be provided i n conjunction with the building plan submittal . 36.The applicant should consider the relocation or transplanting of the existing Olive tree i f feasible . 37.The preliminary title report included reference to an access agreement . A copy of th e agreement shall be provided with the building plan submittal unless otherwise resolved . The plans shall clarify whether the provisions of the agreement affect the proposed sit e development . The agreement shall be extinguished or amended if applicable . 38.The building plan submittal shall clarify the disposition of the existing on-site and off-sit e monitoring wells . The wells located within the public right-of-way shall be abandoned i f no longer needed. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether additional wells wil l be required within the public right-of-way to compensate for the removal of any on-sit e wells . PH 1-50 Resolution No . ARC-1002-12 . 1340 Taft Street, ARC 50-0 9 Page 7 Utilitie s 39.The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property's existing and proposed water meter(s), water services,and sewer laterals to the points of connection a t the City water and sewer mains . Each proposed unit shall have a separate water meter . 40.If the property's existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a vide o inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during th e Building Permit Review process . If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must b e abandoned per City standards . Code Requirements The following code requirements are included for information purposes only.They serve to giv e the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project . This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1.The number of and locations of Street Trees are adequate . From a maintenance outloo k consider revising the ornamental pears to a species less prone to limb failure . Trees are to be planted to City specifications . 2.Tree protection measures on existing trees to remain shall be installed before any demolition or construction begins . These measures are to follow the City's Standar d Specifications & Engineering Standards, section 20-2 TREE PROTECTION . On motion by Commissioner Hopkins, seconded by Commissioner Wynn, and on th e following roll call vote : AYES : Commissioners Hopkins,Wynn, MeCovey-Good, Duffy,and Ehdai e NOES : Commissioners Palazzo and Curtis REFRAIN : Non e ABSENT : None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18 th day of June, 2012 . tGam' Pam Ricci, retary Architectural Review Commission PH1-51 Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM #I BY :Pam Ricci, Senior Planner MEETING DATE : Jane 18, 201 2 FROM : Doug Davidson, Deputy Directo r FILE NUMBER ARC 50-0 9 PROJECT ADDRESS : 1340 Taft Street SUBJECT : Final review of development plans for a mixed-use project with seven residentia l units and 3,900 square feet of commercial space on a 19,705 square-foot site located on th e northwest corner of Taft Street and Kentucky Avenue . RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 8), which grants final approval to the project, based o n findings, and subject to conditions . BACKGROUN D Situation/Previous Revie w On March 5, 2012, the ARC conceptually reviewed the mixed-use project plans .There was active involvement from the public with a total of 13 speakers which were fairly evenly divide d between those in support of the project and those with concerns about the design .The AR C continued action to a date uncertain with specific directional items . On May 7, 2012, the ARC reviewed the project and again continued action to a date uncertain . Prior to taking a final action on the project ; the Commission asked for additional building detail s and more articulated expanded elevations to better illustrate the project's context . At this hearing, there again was a well-attended public hearing with a total of 13 Speakers . The applicant has modified plans in response to ARC direction and is asking for final approval o f the project . This report focuses on the modified plans and evaluates their consistency with AR C direction provided on 5-7-12 . The more detailed ARC report prepared for the 3-5-12 AR C meeting is attached for its background information and analysis (Attachment 5) as well as th e briefer report, prepared for the 5-7-12 ARC meeting (Attachment 7). Data Summary Address :1340 Taft Stree t Applicant :Eran Fields, Icon at SLO, LL C Representative :Jay Blatter, Architect Zoning :Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N ) General Plan :Neighborhood Commercia l Environmental Status :Categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects , Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines PH1-52 ARC 50-09 (Icon Project ; 1340 s Street — 6-18-12) Page 2 Attachment 6 EVALUATIO N The applicant is seeking final approval of project plans that have now been reviewed on tw o previous occasions . As was noted in the presentation for the May 7 th meeting, the ARC found the general footprints of buildings, their height and scale, and project access to be acceptabl e with the conceptual review of plans on March 5 th .With the ARC's May 7 th review of th e project, the main direction was to provide full and complete plans including architectural details and to explore ways to further step the building back from the alley (Attachment 6). The applicant provided written responses to the May 7th ARC directional items (Attachment 3) whic h are summarized in the following paragraphs : •Commission Direction # 1 :Show the scale and locations of adjacent buildings in elevation views . The Commission directed that the views include dwellings beyond the site o n Kentucky Avenue as well as the views for Taft Street and the alley partially depicted on Sheet A3 .3 of the 5-7-12 submittal . Staff's Analysis :Sheet A3 .3 has been modified to include a streetscape view of Kentuck y Avenue which includes the property lines, street and alley identification, building height callout s and the locations and scale of nearby structures to provide a better depiction of project context . +Commission Direction # 2 :Provide colored elevations of proposed buildings on all sides. Staff's Analysis :Sheets A3 .4 & A3 .5 (without landscaping graphics) and Sheets A3 .6 & A3 .7 (with landscaping graphics) include colored elevations for all sides of the building.The material callouts are included on Sheets A3 .1& A3 .2 . A colors and materials board will be available a t the meeting . Commission Direction # 3 :Explore moving the third floor mass of Building B closest to th e alley to the Taft Street frontage of Building A to provide a better transition between th e project and the existing residential neighborhood along Kentucky . Staffs Analysis :The idea o f relocating the smaller affordable uni t from the second floor of Building A t o Building B closer to the alley was not pursued because it compromised th e ability to provide the stacked parkin g with direct access to the units the y served . To address the goal o f providing more of a transition betwee n the alley and the project, the third floo r of Building A is now stepped bac k 3'6". This provides more interest and variation in the building wall plan e closest to the alley (See Figure 1).Figure I . Perspective View of Northeas t Corner of Building B PHI-53 /--\, ARC 50-09 (Icon Project; 1340 —Street– 6-18-12 ) Page 3 •Commission Direction # 4 :Include information on the locations of any electrical boxes an d proposals for screening . Staff's Analysis : The electrical panel for the project will be located in the basement of th e building . •CommissionDirection#5 :Verify the project's accessible parking requirement . If th e requirement is exceeded, then consider the creation of an additional surface parking space . Staff's Analysis :The project is required to include the two accessible spaces that are shown . •Commission Direction it6 :Provide all of the information required for final architectura l review including further details of architectural features such as railings, canopies , mechanical screening,and transitions between different surface materials. Staff's Analysis :The requested details have been provided including : a.Stair and balcony railing s b.Rheinzink bay s c.Horizontal siding detai l d.Detail of Rheinzink to cementitous siding transition e.Green Wall system f.Corrugated metal roof/rake detai l g.Balcony light detail/cut shee t h.Storefront light detail/cut sheet . i.Typical window detail s Conclusion :City staff has supported the project as a quality design that provides infill an d intensification through redevelopment of a blighted abandoned service station. The propose d project also fulfills City goals to provide affordable housing since one of the units will be buil t on site and dedicated affordable , With their review of project plans, the ARC should focus on whether the directional item s provided on May 7th have been addressed and not bring up new issues or debate projec t components that have been previously found to be acceptable . ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues . 2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Desig n Guidelines . ATTACHMENT S 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced-scale project plan s 3. Applicant's response letter dated 6-11-12 & e-mail listing modification s 4. 3-15-12 ARC Follow-up letter (dated 3-7-12) & minute s 5. 3-15-12 ARC staff report & attachment s 6. 5-7-12 ARC Follow-up letter (dated 5-10-12) & minutes PHI-54 Attachment 6 ARC 50-09 (Icon Project ;1340Street—6-18-12) Attachment 6 Page 4 7 5-7-12 ARC staff report with Attachment 2 (project plans) & Attachment 3 (applican t's response letter dated 3-23-12) 8 . Draft Resolutio n Enclosed in packets : Colored 11" x 17" plans PH1-55 Attachment 6 SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTE S June 18, 201 2 ROLL CALL: Present:Commissioners Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Gre g Wynn, Ken Curtis, Vice-Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, and Chairperso n Jim Duffy Staff:Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson and Senio r Planner Pam Ricci ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA : The agenda was accepted as presented .' MINUTES : The minutes of June 4, 2012, were approved as amended . PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS : There were no comments made from the public . PUBLIC HEARINGS : 1 .1340 Taft Street.ARC 50-09 ; Review of mixed-use project with 3,900 sq . ft . of commercial space and seven residential .units ; C-N zone ; ICON at SLO, applicant . Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report recommending that th e Commission adopt the draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, base d on findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined . She provided an overview o f the project and focused on the changes that were made to address the directiona l points that the ARC identified with their previous review of the project on May 7 t'. Jay Blatter, applicant representative, summarized the revisions made to plans t o address ARC directional items, including stepping back the third floor of Building B nex t to the alley and stairwell changes to Building A to minimize the scale and improve th e appearance of the rear elevation . Commr. Curtis questioned project massing . Mr. Blatter responded that he did not fee l that the project had the appearance of a podium project and described how the massin g of Building B stepped back from Kentucky Avenue and the alley . Commr. Duffy had questions regarding the building's base material and railing details . Mr. Blatter explained that the base would be a split-face block material in a color which ARC Minutes June 1$, 201 2 Page 2 Attachment 6 is darker than the adjoining stucco, and that the upper deck railing design was differen t than those used on lower floors because the upperfloor railing was not a code mandat e and,therefore,was not required to have as tight of spacing for the rails . Commr . Palzzo asked for confirmation that railings, rather than guard rails,were proposed on the roof terraces . Mr. Blatter responded that they were railings . PUBLIC COMMENTS : Isabel Marques, San Luis Obispo, did not support the project as designed . Sh e expressed concern about the proposed project access from the alley and supporte d removal of the third floor level . She indicated that the traffic study was flawed becaus e counts did not take into account Cal Poly traffic because of the time of year that the y were conducted . Edith Jakes, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project, finding that it was not compatibl e with the neighborhood . She had concerns with traffic safety, parking impacts, an d removal of the alley retaining wail . She recommended that the frontage of Taft Stree t be red-curbed. Aaryn Abbott, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noting that it was a good example of infill development with a well-articulated design and pedestria n orientation . He added that the design screened parking from street views, provide d needed housing close to Cal Poly, and would provide economic benefits to th e community . Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, mentioning that th e project prompted pedestrian activity and conforms to property development standard s without the need for exceptions . He mentioned that the units will appeal to a variety of households and that the massing design minimizes the project's scale . Brent Spiegel spoke in support of the project, noting that it would appeal to thos e desiring a more urban lifestyle . Richard Garcia spoke in support of the project, pointing out that it will be a vas t improvement and eliminate the current eyesore . Saeed Davar, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noting that he was a fellow landlord who agreed with the development of new housing . Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, stated that the neighbors spoke best about projec t concerns . She expressed concern with the rooftop terraces and safety issues . There were no further comments made from the public . Mrs . Ricci noted that Condition No . 23 required red-curbing along Taft Street unless a traffic analysis demonstrated that a loading space could safely be provided . PH 1-57 ARC Minute s June 18, 201 2 Page 3 Attachment d COMMISSION COMMENTS : Commr . Wynn stated that the design would result in a nice project and that the applican t had responded to the Commission's direction . He noted that this location would benefi tfromadded bike parking . He recommended that Condition No . 2 have language adde d that the metal proposed on sloping roofs should match the siding and that Condition No . 8 add wording about the screening of electrical equipment . Comm Hopkins supported the project and agreed with Commr . Wynn's suggestions o n the minor revisions to the resolution . Commr. Ehdaie spoke in support of the project as it provided affordable housing an d commercial uses mixed with the housing . Vice-Chair McCovey-Good spoke in support of the project . Commr. Curtis noted that he would not be voting in support of the project . He indicate d that his main concern was the project's scale and massing along Kentucky Avenue an d that the added 3'6" setback of the building from the alley was not sufficient . He did no t support the proposed roof decks . Chairperson Duffy spoke in support of the project as a good example of site an d building planning . There were no further comments made from the Commission . On motion by Commr . Hopkins, seconded by Commr . Wynn, to adopt the Resolutio n whichgrants final approval to the proiect, based on findings and subiect to conditions , with the following modifications to conditions : 1.Add final sentence to Condition No . 2 : "Thesling awnings shall match the vertica l metal (no corrugated siding)." 2.Modify Condition No . 8 to add the words "and electrical" to the first sentence and t o add the following final sentence : "This condition applies to initial construction an d later improvements." AYES :Commrs . Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, and Duff y NOES :Commrs . Palazzo and Curti s RECUSED :Non e ABSENT :None The motion passed on a 5 :2 vote . COMMENT AND DISCUSSION : ARC Minutes June 18, 201 2 Page 4 .tt c iment 6 3.Staff: a . Agenda Forecas t Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects .She stated the July 2nd meeting would be cancelled . 4.Commission : There was a general discussion about the lack of specific guidelines related to mixed - use projects in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff pointed out that Section 5 .4 was intended to apply to new multi-family projects in residential zones rather tha n mixed-use projects in commercial zones such as the Icon project which is zoned C-N, Neighborhood-Commercial . However, when there is not explicit direction in the CDG o n a particular project type, either general principles or provisions of similar sections are pointed out as guidance on project design . ADJOURNMENT :The meeting adjourned at 6 :55 p .m . Respectfully submitted by , Pam Ricc i Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectual Review Commission on July 16 th , 2012 . Rya n Sup ising Administrative Assistant PH1-59 Attachment 7 City Of San Luis oBIspo Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-321 8 May 10, 201 2 Eran Field s ICON at SLO Wells Fargo Cente r 333 S . Grand Avenue, Suite 420 0 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 SUBJECT : ARC 50-09 : 1340 Taft Street Review of mixed-use project with 3,900 sq . ft . of commercial .spac e and seven residential unit s Dear Mr . Fields : The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of May 7, 2012, continue d consideration of the above-listed project to a date uncertain with the followin g directional items : 1.Show the scale and locations of adjacent buildings in elevation views . Th e Commission directed that the views include dwellings beyond the site on Kentuck y Avenue as well as the views for Taft Street and the alley partially depicted o n Sheet A3 .3 of the 5-7-12 submittal . 2.Provide colored elevations of proposed buildings on all sides . Explore moving the third floor mass of Building B closest to the alley to the Taf t Street frontage of Building A to provide a better transition between the project an d the existing residential neighborhood along Kentucky . 4.Include information on the locations of any electrical boxes and proposals fo r screening . 5.Verify the project's accessible parking requirement .If the requirement i s exceeded, then consider the creation of an additional surface parking space . 6.Provide all of the information required for final architectural review including furthe r details of architectural features such as railings, canopies, mechanical screening , and transitions between different surface materials . ft The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services ; programs and activities .— , .. _ .. PH1-60 Attachment 7 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street ) Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7168 , Sincerely , cc: County of SLO Assessor's Offic e ICON at SLO, LL C 9300 Wilshire Blvd ., Suite 33 3 Beverly Hills, CA 9021 0 Pam Ricci, ' IC P Senior Planner Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM #1 BY :Pam Ricci, Senior Planner pg, MEETING DATE :May 7, 201 2 FROM : Doug Davidson, Deputy Director lj?.v . FILE NUMBER :ARC 50-0 9 PROJECT ADDRESS : 1340 Taft Stree t SUBJECT : Final review of development plans for a mixed-use project with seven residentia l units and 3,900 square feet of commercial space on a 19,705 square-foot site located on th e northwest corner of Taft and Kentucky Streets . RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 6), which grants final approval to the project, based o n findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUN D Situation/Previous Revie w On March 5, 2012, the ARC conceptually reviewed the mixed-use project plans . There was active involvement from the public with a total of 13 speakers which were fairly evenly divide d between those in support of the project and those with concerns about the design . The ARC continued action to a date uncertain with specific directional items . The applicant has modified plans in response to ARC direction and is asking for final approval o f the project . This report focuses on the modified plans and evaluates their consistency with AR C direction . The more detailed ARC report prepared for the 3-5-12 ARC meeting is attached for it s background information and analysis (Attachment 5). Data Summar y Address :1340 Taft Street Applicant :Eran Fields, Icon at SLO, LLC Representative :Jay Blatter, Architec t Zoning :Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N ) General Plan :Neighborhood Commercia l Environmental Status :Categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects , Section 15332 of the CEQA Guideline s EVALUATIO N When the ARC previously discussed the project on March 5, 2012, the Commission provide d direction to the applicant and staff (Attachment 4). The applicant's responses to ARC directio n is highlighted in the following paragraphs : PH 1-62 ARC 50-09 (Icon Project ; 1340'..: Street -5-7-12) A achment 7 Page .2 •Commission Direction # 1 :Provide more information ar d staff analysis on use of the alley for project access including : a .On-site directional signage for the commercial parking ; b . Loading space and access for delivery vehicles ; c . Potential widening of the alley to serve the project ; and d Potential for project access off the north side of Kentucky. Staffs Analysis : a.Directional Signage –Plans have been updated to show directional signage . Th e locations of proposed signs are located on Sheets A1 .1 & A2 .1 and the details of sig n faces on Sheet A9 .2 . In terms of the sign designs, staff has concerns that they appear too much like publi c street signs and should be tailored to be clear and legible,but appear like private sign s that coordinate with building architecture in terms of style and colors . Condition No .5 calls for final design details of the signage to be to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Directors . The sign regulations allow private traffi c directional signs that do not exceed 3 feet in height and 5 square feet in area . The proposed condition includes wording that these height and size parameters be followe d unless the Directors determine that there are compelling circumstances such as visibilit y and safety that warrant exceptions . b.Loading Space –An on-site loading space is not required by the Zoning Regulations fo r a Neighborhood Commercial project of this scale .For practical reasons,staff looked into the possibility of providing an on-street location for loading . The Taft Street frontage o f the property is the most practical and efficient location to create a commercial loading space for the project . However, prior traffic studies and sight distance evaluations have determined that on-street parking should be prohibited along Taft Street mainly becaus e of the speed of vehicles exiting from Highway 101 and the proximity of the adjacen t commercial driveway at the 7-11 store development (552 California). Locations along the alley or Kentucky Street create potential conflicts with surrounding residential uses . Condition No . 23 is included providing for the possibility of a loading space along th e project's street frontages if a sight distance analysis can demonstrate new evidence that an on-street loading space can safely be created . Alley Widening --The alley was widened from 20 feet to 26 feet between Kentuck y Street and the bulb out area in front of the trash enclosure near the entry to the site's parking lot . This allows for better visibility for both vehicles entering and exiting th e alley from Kentucky Street . The proposed changes provide safety benefits to both th e project and surrounding neighbors . d.Access of Kentucky –The ARC suggested this as a possible access alternative to b e explored . Instead of a separate access to the site from Kentucky, the applicant opted t o widen the width of the alley closest to Kentucky Street . PH1-63 ARC 50-09 (Icon Project,1340 i :_'Street -5-7-12) Attachment 7Page3 ARC Discussion Point :The ARC should discuss and confirm whether the changes to th e site are consistent with direction or if further adjustments need to be made . •Commission Direction # 2 :Make the affordable unit more in keeping with the high level o f design quality provided for the market-rate units in the project . Staff's Analysis :The floor area of the affordable unit was increased from 700 square feet t o 804 square feet . Floor plan functionality concerns were addressed by eliminating the need t o access the bathroom through the bedroom . Commission Direction #3,:The mass and scale of the project was generally found to b e appropriate . Provide more detail of the rear building elevation and show the scale an d locations of adjacent buildings in elevation views . Staff's Analysis :Modifications were made to the north elevation to include additiona l articulation and relief. Rhinezink cladding has been added to new wall projections with 1-foo t relief A small niche is also provided as reflected on Sheet A3 .2 (north elevation) and Sheet A2 .3 (floor plan). Sheet A3 .3 provides the expanded street and alley elevations with the outlines of the neares t adjacent structures . •Commission Direction# 4 :Provide more information on the potential for lifts to accommodate a greater range of vehicles and on-going maintenance plans . Staff's Analysis : As has been pointed out in past staff reports, the proposed lift systems tha t provide parking for the six townhome style units cannot accommodate all larger vehicles, Th e upper level spaces are smaller with a height of 59 inches that accommodates small and midsiz e cars The lower levels spaces have a height of 76 .7 inches and a maximum length of 205 inche s and accommodate a range of including many ATVs and trucks . Since the ARC 's last review of the project on March 5th,the project parking has not changed _ Condition No, 21 is recommended that provides a requirement of the project to inform futur e residents of the restrictions with the lift parking . Commission Direction #5:Provide all the information required for final architectura l review as detailed on the City's checklist including architectural detail and a complete color s and materials board with actual samples and paint chips . The Commission specifically note d that the use of corrugated metal siding would not be appropriate at this location . Staff's Analysis : The project colors and materials board with actual paint chips and sample s will be available for Commission review at the hearing . Corrugated metal siding is not propose d within the project consistent with ARC direction . ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues . 2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Desig n Guidelines . PH1-64 ARC 50-09 (Icon Project ; 1340 - Street -5-7-12 ) Page 4 Attachment 7 ATTACHMENT S 1. Vicinity map – previously attached 2. Reduced-scale project plans – sheets that were modifie d 3. Applicant's response letter dated 3-23-12- attache d 4. 3-15-12 ARC Follow-up letter (dated 3-7-12) & minutes– previously attache d 5. 3-15-12 ARC staff report & attachments – previously attache d 6. Draft Resolution – not attache d Enclosed in packets : full size plans & colored 11"x 17" plans PH 1-65 j Attachment 7 .SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTE S May 7,201 2 ROLL CALL : Present: Commissioners Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Greg Wynn , Vice-Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, and Chairperson Jim Duffy Absent :Commissioner Curti s Staff:Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson , and Recording Secretary Donre Wrigh t ELECTION :On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Ceram . Ehdaie, Commr . Duffywas elected Chairperson .On motion by Commr. Ehdaie, secondedbyCommr. Wynn Commr. McCovey-Good was elected Vice-Chairperson . ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA : The agenda was accepted as presented . MINUTES : The minutes of April 16, 2012 were approved as amended . PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS : There were no comments made from the public . PUBLIC HEARING S 1 .1340 Taft Street.ARC 50-09 ; Review of mixed-use project with 3,900 sq . ft. of commercial space and seven residential units ; C-N zone ; ICON at SLO, applicant .(Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adop t the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject t o conditions, which she outlined . She provided an overview of the project and focused on the changes that were made to address the directional points that the ARC identified with their conceptual review of the project on March 5 th. Commr.Wynn questioned if the Kentucky area was currently in a parking district . Ms . Ricci replied that it was not . Commr . Wynn asked whether the location for the electrical supply cabinet for the building had been determined and how it would be screened . Ms . Ricci stated that the details were not ye t known, but that a condition could be added to require screening . Nigel Gomersoll, applicant representative, summarized the revisions made to plans to addres s ARC directional items . PHI-66 Attachment 7 ARC Minute s May 7, 201 2 Page 2 Commr . Wynn asked for clarification as to whether corrugated siding was still proposed on th e building . Mr. Gomersoll indicated that it was only proposed on sloping roofs,. not for flat wal l siding which would be Rhinezink . Commr. Palazzo questioned the details on the handrails and canopies . Mr. Gomersoi l responded the handrails would be flat bar rails . Commr. Ehdaie inquired about on-site parking for the commercial use . Mrs .Ricci answered that the uncovered parking spaces behind the building off the alley were set aside for the commercia l uses, guest parking for the residences, and the affordable housing unit. • Chairperson Duffy asked if both lower and upper awnings are proposed per the detail on th e Page A9 .2 . Mr.Gomersoll responded yes . Commr. Ehdaie questioned how the space between the rails and the deck surfaces would b e finished . Mr. Gomersoll responded that the drawings did not fully depict the railings, but that th e flat bar rail would infill this space . PUBLIC COMMENTS : Aaryn Abbott, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noting that it was a good desig n for the site . Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, mentioning that the change s made since the last meeting were positive and that the project would be an asset to th e community . Isabel Marques, San Luis Obispo, did not support the project . She expressed concern about th e proposed project access and increased traffic on the alley . She opposed a third floor level at this site and recommended that the height be decreased . Lois Barber, Shell Beach, supported the project, noting that the applicant has develope d attractive projects . Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, did not support a final ARC approval action at this meeting . She mentioned that the project design was inconsistent with several City policies and had issues with building height, parking, traffic, and headlights shining into the residences along the alley . She questioned why a solar shading study had not been completed . Edith Jakes, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project, finding that it was not compatible with th e neighborhood . She had concerns with traffic safety, deliveries, and removal of the alle y retaining wall. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to not let this be the final meeting fo r the project . She was concerned about building height and suggested removing the third floo r level to be more compatible with the neighborhood . She stated that the applicant had no t responded fully to ARC direction such as providing expanded streetscape renderings. PH1-67 Attachment 7 ARC Minute s May 7, 201 2 Page 3 -Ellen Goodwin, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the height of the building , recommending that story poles be erected and that the third floor be stepped back from th e alley. She suggested that the spaces around the garage lifts be increased to accommodate a greater range of vehicles . Thom Jess, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project and supported the parking lift s being utilized in San Luis Obispo . Truitt Vance, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project including the parking lifts, notin g that it was maximizing density and a pedestrian friendly design . Devin Gallagher, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about alley access not creating a logica l flow pattern for cars or pedestrians . He added that he would like to see more pedestria n connectivity, especially since Kentucky Street is a major corridor to Cal Poly . Gil Bastidas, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of this project and thought that it would be a good project for the area . Karen Adler, San Luis Obispo, stated that she initially thought the project was good, but i s concerned about insufficient parking and the height of the third story . There were no further comments made from the public . Mrs . Ricci responded to some of the comments made from the public . She reiterated that the ARC with its conceptual review of the project had expressed support for building footprints , overall scale,and project access . She stated that staff had advised the Commission at the las t meeting, that a solar shading analysis was not required because the project meets C-N heigh tandsetback requirements . She added that there was a fencing requirement for the housin g directly across the alley from the project to screen headlights and provide privacy . COMMISSION COMMENTS : Commr. Palazzo stated the revised plans do not fully respond to previous ARC direction an d suggested that the project be continued . Commr . Hopkins stated he supported the project and its scale and massing . He was concerne d that the submitted renderings did not show adequate detail of the relationship of the project t o the neighborhood . Commr. Wynn noted that the residential uses within the project provided the benefit of addin g more "eyes on the street" (24-hour presence). He noted that a solar shading study would likel y show that the area to be shaded would be the on-site surface parking rather than nearb y residences given distance and orientation . Vice-Chair McCovey-Good spoke in support of the project . Commr . Ehdaie spoke in support of the project. She had some concerns with circulation an dtraffic. PH 1-68 ARC Minute s May 7, 201 2 Page 4 Attachment 7 Chairperson Duffy spoke in support of the project though he would like to see the projec t continued to obtain more details and information . He suggested stepping the third level of th e building back from the alley and replacing the mass closer to Taft Street . Commr.Palazzo stated the directional items #3,#4,#5 from. March 5th still need to b e addressed . Mrs . Ricci stated the Commission could continue the project with direction or grant final approva l with added conditions to address lingering concerns . She noted that another option would be to have specific items return to the ARC at a later date. Commr. Ehdaie asked staff to discuss loading space requirements for the project . Ms. Ricc i stated that there is not a requirement to provide a designated commercial loading space on-site , but that an on-street loading space on Taft would be a benefit if it could be provided safely . Chairperson Duffy allowed the applicant and owner of the property, Eran Fields to speak . Mr. Fields asked the Commission for further clarification on the directional items, specifically th e suggestion about stepping back the third floor level from the alley . Commr . Palazzo suggested the elevations should match the renderings, the color board an d details . Chairperson Duffy requested color elevations on all sides . There were no further comments made from the Commission . On motion by Commr . Palazzo, seconded by Vice-Chair McCovey-Good to continue the projec t to a date uncertain addressing the Mowing directional items : 1 .Show thescale and locations of adjacent buildingsinelevation views .The Commissio n directedthat the views include dwellings beyond the site on KentuckyAvenueas•wellasthe views forTaftStreet and the alleypartiallydepictedonSheetA3.3 of the5-7-12 submittal . 2 .Provide colored elevations ofproposedbuildings onallsides . 3 .Explore moving the third floor mass ofBuildingBclosest to thealleyto the TaftStreet frontage ofBuildingA to provide a better transition between the project and the existing residential neighborhood along Kentucky . 4 .lnclude information on the locations of an ry electrical boxes and proposals for screening , 5 Veri the re' ct's accessible parkin re uirement . If the re uirem nt is exceeded the n considerthe creation of an additional surface parkingspace. &Provide all of the information required forfinal architectural review including further details of architectural features such as railings,canopies, mechanical screening,andtransitions, between different surface materials . AYES :Commrs . Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, Duffy, and Palazz o NOES :None RECUSED :Non e ABSENT :Commr. Curtis PHI-69 Attachment 7 ARC Minutes May 7, 201 2 Page 5 The motion passed on a 6 :0 vote . COMMENT AND DISCUSSION : 1. Staff: a . Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects . She stated the May 21 st meetin g would be cancelled and that the June 4th hearing would be held in the Council Chamber . 2. Commission : Commr .Palazzo mentioned that some recently-mounted roof equipment for the new restaurant at the Mix on Monterey Street was not screened from views on Johnson Avenue . Commr. Hopkins brought up some detail changes in colors and materials for the newly-installe d canopy of the building located at the corner of Broad and Higuera Streets . ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 7 :05 p .m . Respectfully submitted by, Donre Wright Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on June 4, 2012 . ing Administrative Assistant PH1-70- Attachment 8Fu Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-321 8 March 7, 201 2 Eran Field s ICON at SL O Wells Fargo Cente r 333 S .Grand Avenue, #420 0 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 SUBJECT : ARC 50-09 : 1340 Taft Stree t Conceptual review of mixed-use project with 3,900 sq . ft, of commercial space and seven residential unit s Dear Mr . Fields : The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 5, 2012, continue d consideration of the above-listed .project to a date uncertain with the followin g directional items : 1 . Provide more information and staff analysis on use of the alley for project acces s including : a.On-site directional signage for the commercial parking ; b.Loading space and access for delivery vehicles ; c.Potential widening of the alley to serve the project ; and d.Potential for project access off the north side of Kentucky . 2 . Make the affordable unit more in keeping with the high level of design quality provided for the market-rate units in the project . 3 . The mass and scale of the project was generally found to be appropriate . Provid e more detail of the rear building elevation and show the scale and locations o f adjacent buildings in elevation views . Provide more information on the potential for lifts to accommodate a greater rang e of vehicles and on-going maintenance plans . 5 . Provide all the information required for final architectural review as detailed on th e City's checklist including architectural detail and a complete colors and material s board with actual-samples and paint chips .The Commission specifically note d that the use of corrugated metal siding would not be appropriate at this location . fl The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 . PH1-71 ARC 50.09 (1340 Taft Street)Attachment 8 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Doug Davidson at (805) 781-7177 . Sincerely , cc : County of SLO Assessor's Offic e ICON at SLO, LL C 9300 Wilshire Blvd ., Suite 33 3 Beverly Hills, CA 9021 0 ~C C.% Pam Ricci, A1C P Senior Planner Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM #1 BY :Doug Davidson, Deputy Directors MEETING DATE :March 5, 201 2 FROM : Pam Ricci,Senior Planner FILE NUMBER :ARC 50-0 9 PROJECT ADDRESS :1340 Taft Street SUBJECT :Conceptual review • of development plans for a mixed-use project with seven residential units and 3,900 square feet of commercial space. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIO N Provide direction to staff and the applicant to finalize plans based on the proposed site plan an d building design, and return with project conditions of approval to allow final approval of the proposed project . BACKGROUN D Situatio n The applicant is proposing to redevelop a now defunct gas station site which closed in 2005 . To accommodate site development, the gas station, convenience store, fuel pump canopies, and sit e improvements would be demolished to construct a multi-story, mixed-use project . The proposed mixed-use project would contain seven residential units and 3,900 square feet of commercia l space at the northwest corner of Taft Street and Kentucky Avenue . The subject property is zoned Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N). The project has been scheduled for a conceptual review before the ARC to allow staff and th e applicant, to receive feedback prior to finalizing plans and returning for final approval . Previous Review Previously, the applicant submitted plans for a larger mixed-use project with basement leve l parking, 5,100 square feet of lower floor commercial space, and 20 residential units on th e second through fourth floors . This previously proposed project would have required fina l approval by the City Council for a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Rezoning and Affordabl e Housing Incentives . Exceptions to development standards in the C-N zone including height, density, parking requirements, and lot coverage were part of the previous project . On March 10, 2010, the Planning Commission continued review of the project for the applicant to respond t o general direction provided during the meeting concerning massing, parking, access, traffic, an d building design (March 10, 2010, PC Minutes, Attachment 4). On September 8, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed revised plans with 3,000 square fee t of commercial space and 16 residential units . Following public input and discussion, th e Planning Commission recommended the Council deny the project based on concerns the project was incompatible with the neighborhood (September 8, 2010, PC Minutes, Attachment 5). PHI-73 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street)"-'f ICON at SLO Page 2 On November 21, 2011, the applicant submitted the currently proposed plans which are intende dto comply with development standards of the Neighborho od-Commercial (C-N) zone . Th eapplicant is no longer pursuing the Planned Development Overlay entitlement which require dfinal City Council approval . Only architectural review approval is required for the currentl yproposed project before construction plans could be filed . The applicant's currently propose dproject is significantly downsized from the previous proposals and is responsive to neighborhoo dcomments and Planning Commission direction from previous submittals (see a-f below) . Thecurrent design has significantly reduced site coverage, density, floor area, and grading i ncomparison to the first two submittals : e.The current design complies with setbacks, building height, and densityrequirements requirements of the C-N Zone (Prior designs required setback andheight exceptions). The current proposal includes a density bonus under State lawprovisions. f.There are no balconies facing the residential neighbors north of the project site i nresponse to previous public comment . The item was continued on February 1 3 th for staff to consider additional information provided b ythe applicant, particularly a formal request for the parking concession as allowed by Stat eDensity Bonus Law as an incentive for affordable housing . Also, staff did some additionalresearch on the proposed lift parking system and access issues at the project intersection . PH1-74 Comparison of Project Statistics a.Grading related to parkin g b.Site Coverage Approx . 82 % Total Floor Are ad. Attachment 8 Attachment 8 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street) ' °"I ICON at SL O Page 3 Data Summary Address :1340 Taft Street Applicant :Eran Fields, Icon a t SLO, LL C Representative :Jay Blatter , Architect Zoning :Neighborhood - Commercial (C-N ) General Plan :Neighborhoo d Commercial Environmental Status : Categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Developmen t Projects, Section 15332 of th e CEQA Guidelines Site Descriptio n The project site is currently developed with gas station improvements that have not been in use since the station was closed i n 2005 (Figure 2). The project sit e is adjacent to Neighborhood - Commercial (C-N) serving uses including a 7-Eleven and laundromat to the west, and othe r food and retail uses to the south o f the project site . Medium-Density Residential (R-2) development i s located across an alleyway to the north and across Kentucky Avenue to the east . The site i s within .60 miles of Cal Poly University, and the Californi a Street/US Hwy 101 on/off ramp i s to the southeast of the project sit e (Figure 1 above, and Vicinit y Map, Attachment 1). PH 1-75 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street ) ICON at SL O Page 4 Project Description The proposed project includes the demolition of the vacant service station building, gas statio n canopy, and hardscape site improvements . Proposed new construction includes seven residential units and 3,900 square feet of commercia l floor space.The residential unit configuration consists of six market rate two-bedroom units and one affordable two-bedroom dwelling unit. The market rate units are three levels with parking under the buildings, and are 1,680 square feet in size (Plan sheets A1 .1-A2 .4). The market rate residential units also include three roof terraces shared between two units . The affordable unit i s 700 square feet and located above the commercial space at the corner of Taft Street an d Kentucky Avenue . Proposed parking for the residential units consists of subgrade lift units with a capacity of two vehicles . The project is in compliance with property development standards of the C-N zone (see Table 1 , below), including the parking concessions allowed under State Bonus Density law to for the reduction of one residential space and "compact "stalls for the lifts (see discussion unde r evaluation below) Table 1 : C-N Property Development Standard s STANDARD 'REQUIRED 'PROVIDED 2 Max Coverage 75%52 % Taft Street setback 15 feet 15 feet Kentucky Avenue setback 10 feet 10 feet Alley setback (other yard)10 feet 10 feet West property line (other yard)5 .5' & 7 .5' (2 nd floor)5 .5 feet & 9 feet Building height 35 feet max .35 fee t Residential parking spaces 13 spaces market rate +1 affordable 12 spaces in lifts under units + 1 guest space on grade Commercial parking spaces 13 1 3 Density (12 density units per acre) 5 ..43 + 35% density bonu s (1 .90) for 1 low-income affordable unit = 7 .33 = 7 7 density units Notes: 1.City Zoning Regulation s 2.Applicant's project plans submitted November 2011 . EVALUATIO N The current proposal in terms of its overall scale and building design addresses criticisms note d with the review of previous development plans in 2010 . The proposed project represents an excellent opportunity for the City to improve a blighted site and redevelop the property with a well-designed infill project that makes efficient use of urban land . Attachment .8 PH 1-7 6 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street Attachment 8 ICON at SL O Page 5 The following paragraphs highlight a few key elements of the site and building design of th e project that the ARC should discuss and provide direction to staff and the applicant . 1 .SitePlannin g Access is proposed from Kentucky alley . Typically, alleys are used for adjacent residential units which have parking access off the alley . In this case, both the residential units and the commercial component of the project would be accessed from the alleyway . The applicant's proposed access to the project is a key feature in the overall site design. The applicant has stated the current design is optimal since vehicle circulation would be a saf e distance from the intersection with Kentucky Avenue and the on/off ramps from Highway 101 . The project has also been designed so that no vehicles will have to back out into the alley . The project is designed with a fully conforming parking lot for the commercial component in terms of the numbers of spaces and stall dimensions so there should be no vehicle queuing o r circulation disturbances in the alleyway from vehicles searching for available parking .The access from the alleyway also allows the buildings to be oriented parallel to Kentucky Avenu e and Taft as close as required setbacks allow . This building orientation is consistent with Community Design Guidelines to create a definition of the street edge and parking lot screening . Benefitsofproposed site access (Pros ) 1.Safe distance from the intersection of Kentucky Avenue and the U .S . 101 on/off ramps . 2.Alleyway is currently only used by six residences (minimal impact to existing). 3.Makes use of existing infrastructure (no additional curb cuts). 4.Minimal grading since access allows building placement lower on lot . Potential impacts of proposed site access (Cons ) 1.Additional traffic in alleyway for adjacent residences (noise, headlights,etc .) 2.Exiting vehicles will directly face adjacent residence across alley . ARC Discussion Point :The Commission should discuss whether there needs to be any modifications to the proposed access to the project . Staff believes the applicant's proposal i s the optimal design to minimize vehicle circulation near the Kentucky Avenue and Highwa y 101 on/off ramp intersection and take advantage.of existing street improvements . 2 .Building Design The building design for the two-bedroom residential units includes stacked parking with lift s below grade (sheet A2 .1),a first floor living/dining mom and kitchen (sheet A2 .2), second floo r den/study and bedroom, and a third floor bedroom with a large roof terrace which is shared b y two adjacent units. The proposed two bedroom units are 1,680 square feet in size. The proposed size and bulk of the units is an important consideration in evaluating neighborhood compatibility . The applicant has stated that the unit configuration of 1,680 square feet, 2-bed, 2 .5 bath townhome units are commensurate with market demands for this product type . The applicant ha s PH1-77 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street)1 Attachment 8 ICON at SL O Page 6 stated the den/study is market driven to accommodate the needs of students, teachers, or couples who might have kids and may desire an area to study, relax, and get away. Benefits of proposed building design (Pros ) 1.Dwelling units which can be marketed to a variety of users (students, teachers, families}. 2.Entrances which create pedestrian friendly streetscape along Kentucky Ave . 3.Roof terraces provide excellent open space for each unit. 4.No balconies facing residential neighbors north of the project site . Potential impacts of proposed design (Cons ) 1 . Size and bulk of units larger than structures in the area at 35 feet in height and several levels . ARC Discussion Point :The Commission should discuss and provide direction on the bulk and massing of the project. The project is in conformance with the Zoning Regulation s definitions of bedrooms and den/study rooms . Staff will confirm and condition the projec t to meet the definition of a two-bedroom dwelling with a den/study, which is "a room with more than a 50%open wall area with an adjoining room ." Zoning Regulations - Parkin g The applicant is proposing lifts to provide parking for the residential units (Figure 3, below). The parking requirement is two parking spaces for each of the two-bedroom residential units . The proposal to use lifts is a new concept in San Luis Obispo and should be discussed at th e conceptual review level . Since the lifts can only accommodate small and midsize cars on th e upper level, and the lower spaces have a maximum length of 205 inches, the applicant i s requesting a parking concession to allow "Compact parking ". The applicant is allowed the parking concession under State density bonus law for providing the affordable housing unit on - site . The applicant is proposing several measures to ensure the system remains functional for th e project. The project will have both signage and a control gate to prevent non-residents from entering the basement parking area . The applicant will agree not to sell or rent a unit to a tenan t or buyer that owns more than 2 cars which cannot fit on this system . The system is a "full y independent parking system"and cars do not need to back out of a space in order to park th e second car. The following link provides an animated video showing how the system operates : http ://www .parklift.comJIndependent-Access-Parkers-product .php?product id=1 6 Benefits of proposed parking lifts (Pros) 1.System can accommodate 2 full length vehicles for each unit. 2.Lift system reduces area of the site dedicated to parking . 3.Lift system promote better site use and design and emphasize the building architecture at the street, rather than the automobile . 4.Vehicles that can park at the property are smaller and more likely more efficient . 5.Reduced carbon footprint compared to conventional subterranean parking garages . 6.U .S . Green Building Council recognizes environmental benefits of automatic parking an d provides LEED credits . PH 1-78 ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street ).- ICON at SLO Page 7 Potential impacts of parking lifts (Cons ) 1.A range of vehicles cannot park in the lifts . According to the Department of Transportation approximately 40% of California vehicles on the road are trucks or SUVs . These vehicles will not fit in the upper lift level . 2.Measures intended to ensure tenants/buyers have suitable vehicles may not be easil y enforceable . 3.Systems are mechanical and must be kept in working order . *ARC Discussion Point :The Commission should review the appropriateness of a parkin g lift system in this development and as the first application of this parking technique in th e City. The applicant is allowed two "concessions" under State Density Bonus law for affordable housing . The request for a parking concession to allow a lift system is supporte d by City policies to reduce land area devoted to parking and as an incentive to provide affordable housing . 4.Community Design Guidelines – Architectural Element s The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicabl e Community Design Guidelines . Guidelines are in italics followed by a staffs response. 5.4 Cl.Facade and roof articulation . A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale . Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies , porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Staff's Analysis :The bedroom on the third floor steps back from the front wall plane alon g Kentucky Avenue and the project incorporates offsets with changes in wall planes which help t o reduce the apparent scale of the buildings . PH 1-7 9 Attachment ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street)"' ICON at SL O Page 8 5 .3 .E . Exterior Finish Material s The thoughtful selection of building materials can enhance desired neighborhood qualities suc hascompatibility, continuity, and harmony . The design of infill residential structures shouldincorporate an appropriate mixture of the predominant materials found in the neighborhood .Common materials in San Luis Obispo are smooth, troweled, or sand finished stucco, wood,horizontal clapboard siding, shingles, brick, and stone . 5.3 .F. Exterior Colors Colors for infill residential structures should consider the colors of existing houses in th eneighborhood, to maintain compatibility . Staff's Analysis :The project architecture is compatible with adjacent commercial structure salong Taft Street and should make a suitable transition to adjacent residential dwellings . Th eprojectuses horizontal siding material, metal roof awnings, corrugated metal, and smooth plaste r(see Figure 4, above). The exterior colors and materials proposed for the project ar ecomplementary to surrounding development and are consistent with materials commonly used i nSan Luis Obispo . ARC Discussion Point :The Commission should discuss if there are any needed modification sto the architectural design, materials, and colors in the project which the ARC would like to se ewhen plans return for final review . SUMMARY The project offers a quality design while promoting infill and intensification throug hredevelopment of a blighted abandoned service station . The proposed project also fulfills Citygoals to provide affordable housing since one of the units will be built on site and dedicate daffordable. PH 1-8 0 Attachment 8 Attachment 8ARC 50-09 (1340 Taft Street)"‘---) ICON at SLO Page 9 Attachments : Attachment 1 : Vicinity map - previously attache d Attachment 2 : Applicant project statemen t Attachment 3 : Reduced-size project plans sheets that were modifie d Attachment 4 : Planning Commission Minutes, meeting of March 10, 2010 – not attache d Attachment 5 : Planning Commission Minutes, meeting of September 8, 2010 – not attache d Attachment 6 : Lift parking systems informatio n Attachment 7 : Letters received regarding the project Enclosed in packets : full size plan s G :\CD-PLAN\BLeveill\ARC\ARC 50-09 (ICON, 1340 Taft Street)\ARC 50-09 (ICON, conceptual review) 2,13,12 .docx PH1-81 Attachment 8 SAN LUIS OBISP O ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTE S March 5, 201 2 ROLL CALL : Present :Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Michell e McCovey-Good,Greg Wynn,Vice-Chair Jim Duffy, and Chairperso n Anthony Palazz o Absent :Commr . Ehdaie Staff:Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Deputy Director Doug Davidson, and Directo r Derek Johnson ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA : The agenda was accepted as presented . MINUTES : The minutes of February 13, 2012, were approved as presented . PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS : There were no comments made from the public . PUBLIC HEARINGS : 1 .1340 Taft Street .ARC 50-09 ; Conceptual review of mixed-use project with 3,90 0 sq . ft . of commercial space and seven residential units ; C-N zone ; ICON at SLO , applicant.(Continued from February 13, 2012, meeting)(Doug Davidson) Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending th e Commission conceptually review project plans and provide direction on issues outline d in the staff report relating to the proposed site plan and building design . He provided a n overview of the project history, its current components, and outlined the topics wher e feedback from the Commission was desired . Commr . Curtis questioned the intent of the amenity space over the propose d commercial space . Staff responded the amenity space was intended to serve the residences and require d no additional parking as an accessory use . He further responded the applicant planne d to eventually create condominium units here, the alley at the rear of the site was publi c right-of-way, and that the commercial spaces would be small, low-impact type uses . H e noted that staffs research had found that the parking lifts proposed have been utilize d in many projects and that they do require some on-going maintenance . PHI-82 ARC Minutes March 5, 201 2 Page 2 Eran Fields,applicant, spoke in support of the project .He provided a brief introductio n and reiterated his motivation to improve the site with the project. Jay Blatter, applicant's architect, explained the preference for alley access for safety and maneuvering . He provided an overview of the project including the intent of th e amenity space,a fully-independent mechanical lift parking system, the proposed gree n wall at the back of residential units, and materials to be used for the project. Th e materials described include : stucco, Rheinzink Siding (tile pattern), fiber cement sidin g and metal awnings . He stated that more architectural details will be presented with th e final review . Commr. Wynn questioned how the green plant wall will work, and Mr . Blatter clarifie d that the wall will be planted with vines or succulents . Vice-Chair Duffy asked about the idea of corrugated metal siding for pop-outs .M Blatter stated that they were flexible with some of the material choices . Commr . Hopkins asked if there are any proposed changes to the existing alley . Mr. Blatter responded by saying that the plans include taking down the wall . Commr. Curtis asked if the parking is two or three tiered and where the affordable unit's parking is located .Mr . Blatter responded that the mechanical parking is two levels an d 12 feet high, and the affordable unit's parking space is located in the surface parking lot. Commr. Curtis questioned why the roof terrace is shared and if the amenity space fo r residents is separately leasable . Mr . Blatter explained there would be a low height division like a planter on the roof terraces and affirmed that the amenity space would not be separately leasable so that it is maintained for residents . Commr. McCovey-Good questioned if there would be any roof-mounted equipment, an d Mr . Blatter described that it would be screened by the building parapet . Commr. Wynn asked about the height clearance in the lift area . Mr. Blatter stated that i t is high enough to accommodate most people . PUBLIC COMMENTS : Edith Jakes, San Luis Obispo, noted concerns with the scale of the project and on - street parking creating visibility issues . Frank Jakes,San Luis Obispo,stated that he thinks the project is architecturall y attractive but is too large in scale .He also expressed concern for alley access , specifically that delivery trucks could block the alley for other traffic . Other points h e raised included that the den could become a bedroom,on-site parking is already taxed ,and the amenity space could be converted . ARC Minute s March 5, 201 2 Page 3 Attachment 8 im, Isabel Marques,San Luis Obispo, opposed the project .She stated there are 14 parkin g spaces currently served off the alley as well as garbage service . She is agains t removing the retaining wall and thinks that access should be from the street instead o f the alley . She stated there is not enough parking provided by the project .. Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern the project would be too high i n density and serve more of the student population . She was also concerned with th e safety of the parking lifts . Gil Bastidas,San Luis Obispo, supported the project because the site is currently a blight of the area and the project will be a visual and safety improvement . Thom Jess,San Luis Obispo,spoke of his experience with parking lifts and stated tha t Klaus is a high-quality manufacturer and this application is a good use of the lift . Traitt Vance, San Luis Obispo, mentioned that the project meets its parkin g requirements without asking for the available 30% mixed-use reduction . Ellen Goodwin, San Luis Obispo, stated there should be further analysis of parkin g (including maintenance) and potential impacts on alley access . She added that th e affordable unit should be bigger with a parking/bike space, the overall project scale an d bulk reduced,and mechanical equipment screening included in final plans . Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, noted the project can limit the number of cars tha t residents can have and the alley access to project parking is a superior design.He also mentioned that the project provides the opportunity for retail presence along the street . Shawn Reed,San Luis Obispo, supported the project's redevelopment and infill of th e site and believed the proposed access is safe . He also pointed out that tenants won't necessarily be students . Aaryn Abbott, San Luis Obispo, supported the project as a mixed-use urban lifestyl e that promotes pedestrian movement . He added that the project is more attractive tha n many older projects and parking is not the primary project feature . Chris Bertilacchi,San Luis Obispo, supported the project .He called attention to the us e of the site by homeless and as an illegal dumping ground . Sandra Rowley mentioned a letter she prepared for Residents for Qualit y Neighborhoods (RQN). She suggested the project leave the retaining wall in place an d that project traffic take access from the project site rather than the alley . COMMISSION COMMENTS : Commr . Curtis mentioned the importance of signage to properly direct commercia l customers to on-site parking but was not convinced that alley access would work for th e commercial tenants .He recommended that the idea of an on-street delivery loading PH1-84 ARC Minute s March 5, 201 2 Page 4 At achm nt 8 zone be explored . He emphasized the mechanical parking should be maintained i n good condition at all times . He suggested upper floor setbacks to modulate massin g and reduce the project scale along Kentucky Street . Commr . Hopkins supported the idea of an alley access if other issues are addressed . He appreciated the size and bulk of the project as the entrance to the neighborhood . Commr. McCovey-Good stated that roof equipment could add to the bulk of the projec t but stated the mechanized parking is a good use of space . Commr. Wynn noted concern that commercial customers will not find the on-site parkin g provided off the alley . He suggested keeping the portion of the site near the stree t intersection clear of access points . He further recommended removing some height out of the interior volumes and asked the architect to confirm the overall building height . H e supported the idea of mechanical parking and asked that uses for the amenity space b e clarified in final project plans . Vice-Chair Duffy mentioned exploring an alternative to widen the existing alley to address some of the access issues raised . He suggested reducing the scale of deck s for units but appreciated the building articulation along the streets . He asked that fina l plans show the scale and location of surrounding buildings to better understand th e project . He supported mechanical parking because it provides a smaller footprint t o accommodate a denser infill project . Chairperson Palazzo shared concerns with the amount and mix of traffic on the alle y and requested more detail of the rear elevation . On a motion by Commr . Hopkins, seconded by Commr . McCovey-Good, to continue th e project to a date uncertain with the following directional items : 1 . Provide more information and staff analysis on use of the alley for project acces s including : a.On-site directional signage for the commercial parking ; b.Loading space and access for delivery vehicles ; c.Potential widening of the alley to serve the project ; an d d.Potential for project access off the north side of Kentucky. 2 . Make the affordable unit more in keeping with the high level of design qualit y provided for the market-rate units in the project . 3 . The mass and scale of the project was generally found to be appropriate . Provid e more detail of the rear building elevation and show the scale and locations o f adjacent buildings in elevation views . 4 . Provide more information on the potential for lifts to accommodate a greater range o f vehicles and on-going maintenance plans . 5.Provide all the information required for final architectural review as detailed on th e City's checklist including architectural detail and a complete colors and material s board with actual samples and paint chips . The Commission specifically noted tha t the use of corrugated metal siding would not be appropriate at this location . PHI-85 ARC Minutes March 5, 201 2 Page 5 A tt achment 8 AYES :Commrs . Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Curtis, Wynn, Duffy, and Palazz o NOES :Non e RECUSED :Non e ABSENT :Commr . Ehdai e The motion passed on a 6 :0 vote . COMMENT AND DISCUSSION : 2.Staff: a .Agenda Forecas t Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects . 3.Commission : Commr. Hopkins mentioned that removal of an awning and new sign for the flip-flo p store on Higuera Street created an unfinished appearance . ADJOURNMENT :The meeting adjourned at 8 :30 p .m . Respectfully submitted by , Pam Ricci Recording Secretar y Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on March 19, 2012 . Ryan Betz Supervising Administrative Assistant Attachment 9 RESOLUTION NO . (2012 Series ) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O DENYING APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIE W COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE PROJEC T FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1340 TAFT STREE T (ARC 50-09) WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission, on July 18, 2012, approved a mixed-use project with seven residential units and 3,900 square feet of commercial floor area i n the Neighborhood Commercial zone; an d WHEREAS,Isabel Marques filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 27, 2012 ; and WHEREAS,Sandra Rowley on behalf of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods filed a n appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 28, 2012 ; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 7 , 2012, for the purpose of considering the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action ; and WHEREAS,the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and th e evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo as follows : SECTION 1 .Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings : As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate for a mixed-use project and will b e compatible with surrounding development . 2 . The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare o f persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use projec t conforms to all Zoning Regulation requirements . The proposed project, which provides a deed-restricted unit affordable to low-incom e households, is consistent with many policies and programs of the General Plan tha t encourage new development to accommodate affordable housing production and variety . By providing this affordable unit within the project, the City is able to approve a 35 % density bonus and two incentives . The specific incentive approved for the project i s allowing the lift parking as proposed since the upper level of the mechanical lifts do no t PH1-87 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 2 expressly meet the dimensional standard for parking spaces in the City's Parking & Driveway Standards and do not accommodate some larger trucks and SUVs . Condition No . 21 is included to advise prospective residential tenants of this parking design to insur e that it meets their needs . 4.The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects i n commercial districts and neighborhood preservation policies . The project complies wit h LUE Policy 2 .2 .10 by: having two-story development closest to Kentucky Avenue an d stepping back in height toward the center of the lot ; providing a substantial setbac k between project buildings and the closest buildings on adjacent sites ; and complying with all property development standards for the C-N zone . The project also complies with LU Policy 2 .2 .12 by including design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction such a s the entries to residential units facing Kentucky Avenue . 5.The revised project is appropriate for the site and its surroundings and its design maintains consistency with the Community Design Guidelines for infill development, specificall y Community Design Guideline 5 .4 C .2 which encourages new residential projects to ste p back in height from the street and provide entries to individual units from the street . 6.The proposed project makes good use of a deteriorated and unattractive site that has no t been viable for many years and creates an attractive and efficient site development . 7.The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, Infill Development Projects, Sectio n 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines . SECTION 2 .Action .The City Council hereby denies the appeals and upholds th e Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the mixed-use projec t (ARC 50-09) with 7 dwellings and 3,900 square feet of commercial floor area, with incorporation of the following conditions : Conditions : Final project design and construction drawings shall be consistent with the alternativ e project design proposed by the applicant to respond to key issues raised by neighbors an d included in the 9-7-12 City Council Agenda report as Attachment 3 and in substantia l conformance with the project plans approved by the ARC on 6-18-11 A separate, full - size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lis t all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No . 2 . Referenc e should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements ar e addressed . Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or othe r conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Revie w Commission,as deemed appropriate . PHI -88 Resolution No . (2012 Series) 'Attachment '.9 Page 3 2.The color board for the project buildings presented at the meeting was supported by th e Architectural Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palette shall b e reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit . Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved a s part of working drawings . The sloping awnings shall match the vertical metal (n o corrugated siding). 3.All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to th e satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type o f application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a buildin g permit . 4.Plans shall clearly show the details of all windows and storefronts . 5.A sign program for the development including both tenant and site wayfinding an d directional signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Developmen t Director with consultation with the Public Works Director regarding site directional signs . The Community Development Director may approve the sign program if it is consisten t with applicable sections of the sign regulations and is in keeping with the character an d context of the building . The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessiv e or out of character with the project . The Director has the authority to approve mino r exceptions with the sign program for directional signs if there are compellin g circumstances such as visibility and safety that warrant exceptions . 6.If proposed, parking lot poles and fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and no t exceed 20 feet in height measured from the parking lot surface to the top of the fixture . The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downwar d consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards containe d in Chapter 17 .23 of the Zoning Regulations . Fixture and pole design shall complement th e building architecture . 7.The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings . All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture . The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut-sheets shall be separatel y submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures . The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirement s of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17 .23 of the Zonin g Regulations . Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need t o be included as part of plans . A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterio r wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if th e Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare ." PHI'-89 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 4 8.Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building . Wit h submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building , which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment t o be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequatel y screen them . A line-of- site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screenin g will be adequate . This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements . 9.Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosures shall be included i n working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of th e Community Development and Utilities Departments . The ultimate design shall b e consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines and coordinate with the exterior design of th e buildings . 10.A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to th e Community Development Department along with working drawings . The legend for th e landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and tree s with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans . 11.The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall b e shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan . Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed . Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside th e building within 20 feet of the front property line . Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembl y shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a lo w wall .The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review an d approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors . 12.Final approved floor plans shall clearly call out the approved bedroom count for each uni t following final approval by the Architectural Review Commission and note that alteration s to units to create additional bedrooms are not allowed . A covenant agreement signed b y the property owner shall also be recorded prior to final occupancy . If the project i s subdivided, prospective owners shall be notified of this requirement . 13.Decks and balconies within the project shall not be utilized for the storage needs o f individual units . However, outdoor patio furniture, potted plants and small barbecues ma y be placed in these areas . 14.The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all commo n area including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting , and landscaping in a first class condition . PH 1-90 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 5 15.Individual tenant spaces and the overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderl y manner at all times . All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. Fire 16.The 20 foot wide "public alley"shall be posted as a fire lane . 17.Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access . 18.For the commercial and garage portions of the project, a NFPA 13 system will be required . Based on more detailed information submitted with building plans, a final determinatio n on appropriate sprinkler systems for the residential portions of the development will b e determined. Housin g 19.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordabilit y agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo for one 2-bedroom low-income affordabl e rental housing unit for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded against the title of th e property . Stormwate r 20.The project will require the development, submittal and approval of a Water Pollutio n Control Plan in compliance with California Green Codes 2010 and the City's Stormwate r Management Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit . This will include within th e plan set(s) detailed erosion and sediment control plans and detailed locations of al l stormwater control measures and/or best management practices to be used on the sit e during construction activities and for post construction site stabilization . Since, this sit e had contamination issues at one time the plans should include details on how soils will b e handled, managed, contained and /or disposed of as necessary during the course o f construction . Transportatio n 21.Prospective residential tenants shall be notified of the project's stacked parking design an d advised that they should ensure that the on-site parking is adequate for their needs becaus e they will not be able to obtain on-street parking permits . 22.To ensure adequate visibility at the alley exit onto Kentucky Street, shrubs planted alon g the alley within 10 feet of the public sidewalk shall not exceed three feet in height a t maturity . PH1-91 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 6 23.The project's Taft Street frontage shall be signed for no parking unless a sight distanc e analysis that demonstrates parking or loading can be accommodated is submitted for th e review and approval of the Traffic Operations Manager . The sight analysis shall includ e vehicles exiting to Taft Street from the adjoining development located at 552 California . 24.The project is required to upgrade the adjacent City transit stop serving the site to bring i t into compliance with current City standards which includes a shelter, bench and trash can . 25.The traffic impact report dated September 13, 2009 recommends that pedestrian acces s across Taft Street be discouraged near Kentucky and along the project frontage . Prior t o the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit public improvement plans fo r the installation of pedestrian barricades and/or other measures approved by the Publi c Works Director to direct pedestrian crossings of Taft Street to the crosswalk at Californi a Boulevard . Installation of these improvements shall be installed prior to any occupancy o f the building . 26.Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Tabl e 6 .5 of the Zoning Regulations . Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visibl e locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located a t least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space . Dimensione d locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on th e project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation fo r users in compliance with manufacturers' standards . A minimum four foot wide path o f travel shall be provided to all bicycle parking spaces . Additional bicycle parking (abov e what is required) may be proposed on the project frontages if adequate pedestria n circulation is maintained and they result in no line of sight issues . Public Work s 27.The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan prepare d by a licensed civil engineer. The plan shall include all work within the public right-of-way including the alley . Drainage analysis may be required to justify the curb capacity for th e new driveway approach to the alley, alley drainage, and the transition from the alley int o the parking garage . 28.The existing full depth driveway approach off of Kentucky to the alley shall be replace d per City Engineering Standard #2111 or other standard to the approval of the city . Th e approach shall include provisions for an accessible path of travel across or around th e approach . The plans shall clarify how the effective curb height will be achieved to contai n the street drainage . Otherwise, drainage calculations will be required to include the curb capacity of the proposed approach . The proposed improvements shall be shown to contai n the design storm within the Kentucky right-of-way in accordance with City Engineerin g Standards and the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual . PH1-92 Resolution No . (2012 Series Attachment 9 Page 7 29.The alley paving shall be upgraded for the full width of the alley across the propert y frontage as a condition of the building permit . The civil plans shall clarify the extent o f alley paving beyond the property line as needed to transition to the existing pavement t o remain. 30.A concrete apron shall be provided in front of the trash enclosure to protect the pavemen t from repeated loading . The apron may need to be extended across the entire width of th e alley . 31.The soils report and civil engineering plans shall address the potential for the project t o intercept groundwater . Permanent or temporary de-watering shall comply with city an d state standards and permit requirements . Any permanent dewatering systems shall includ e piping systems that will discharge directly to the public storm drain system and not to th e gutter per City Engineering Standard 1010 .B . A permanent storm drain connection will b e subject to an annual storm drain connection fee in accordance with the fee resolution i n effect at the time of connection . 32.Access into the garage shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for down sloping driveways . 33.The building plan submittal/civil plans shall show and note all signage and stripin g provisions as recommended in the final traffic safety report or as updated for this revise d project. 34.The building plans shall show compliance with the parking and driveway standards, City Engineering Standards, and California Building Code . The parking garage shall include minimum heights, all space dimensions, striping, space widths, and clearances to sid e obstructions in accordance with city standards . The structural plans shall show the location of all walls, shear walls, and columns in agreement with the dimensione d architectural plans . 35.The building plan submittal shall show all existing on-site and off-site trees over 3 in diameter . The plans shall include the diameter, species, and disposition . The off-site tree s located at 552 California shall be shown and noted for reference . The tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference . The plans shall clarify the extent of pruning necessary t o construct the proposed structure . A complete tree preservation plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal . 36.The applicant should consider the relocation or transplanting of the existing Olive tree i f feasible . 37.The preliminary title report included reference to an access agreement . A copy of th e agreement shall be provided with the building plan submittal unless otherwise resolved . PH1-93 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 8 The plans shall clarify whether the provisions of the agreement affect the proposed sit e development . The agreement shall be extinguished or amended if applicable . 38.The building plan submittal shall clarify the disposition of the existing on-site and off-sit e monitoring wells . The wells located within the public right-of-way shall be abandoned if no longer needed. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether additional wells wil l be required within the public right-of-way to compensate for the removal of any on-site wells . Utilitie s 39.The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property's existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection a t the City water and sewer mains . Each proposed unit shall have a separate water meter . 40.If the property's existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a vide o inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during th e Building Permit Review process . If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must b e abandoned per City standards . Code Requirement s The following code requirements are included for information purposes only . They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project . This is no t intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan chec k process . The number of and locations of Street Trees are adequate . From a maintenance outloo k consider revising the ornamental pears to a species less prone to limb failure . Trees are t o be planted to city specifications . 2 . Tree protection measures on existing trees to remain shall be installed before an y demolition or construction begins . These measures are to follow the cities Standar d Specifications & Engineering Standards, section 20-2 TREE PROTECTION . PH1-94 Resolution No . (2012 Series) Attachment 9 Page 9 Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT : The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2012 . Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST : Sheryll Schroede r Interim City Cler k APPROVED AS TO FORM : J . Christine Dietric k J . Christine Dietric k City Attorney G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\Icon Project - ARC 50-09\Staff report & Resolution\ARC 50-09 Council Resolution .do c -PH1-95 Page intentionally lef t blank .