Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-19-2015 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Council Hearing Room City Hall -990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 19, 2015Monday5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the actionstaken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $279and must accompany the appeal documentation. 1.2223 Monterey Street.ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual designreview of a proposed hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two- story units, up to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant. (Steve Matarazzo) 2.224 Tank Farm Road.ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) 3.1299 Orcutt Road.ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land; Robbins/Reed, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Architectural Review Commission Page 2 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. COMMENT & DISCUSSION 4.Staff a.Agenda Forecast 5.Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planners: Steve Matarazzo, Walter Oetzell, and Marcus Carloni ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) SUBJECT: ConceptualReview of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY:Steve Matarazzo,Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1992-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey,Interim Deputy Director Phone Number: 781-7169 E-mail: tcorey@slocity.org RECOMMENDATION:Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and other direction that may be a part of the conceptual review hearing. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn, L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations “S” overlay) General Plan Tourist Commercial Site Area Approximately 4 acres Environmental Status Subject to preparation of an Initial Study due to creek adjacency, historic property status and highway 101 location. SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of aproject that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the creek.Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria. The Planning Commission reviewed the project conceptually on August 26, 2015 and found the project to be consistent with land use and zoning designations of property; and, consistent with the “S”, special considerations, overlay zone (Ordinance 1130). The applicant is now requesting a conceptual architectural review of the preliminary site and architectural plans prior to proceeding with final review of more complete plans to the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission. Meeting Date:October 19,2015 Item Number:1 TAC SM $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 2 The developer is also working with the City and Caltrans to determine the extent of roadway improvements/restrictions that may be needed to reduce the speed of vehicles accelerating onto theHighway 101 north-bound on-ramp, immediately adjacent to the site.Other conflicting traffic movements at the on-ramp/off-ramp locations will also be evaluated with final recommendations going to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The project proposes an expansion of aformer, existing motel (the historic Motel Inn) and would include a new RV parking use. Both land uses are subject to Architectural Review Commission site and architectural plan approval and Planning Commission use permit approval. This conceptual architectural and site plan review process is intended to receive feedback and early direction regarding the consistency of the project with Ordinance 1130 and the community design guidelines prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with more detailed design plans. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and remnants of the Historic Motel Inn Topography Generally level Access North end of Monterey Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101 East: San Luis Creek West: C-T-S, Apple Farm Inn South: R-1-S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood The project site is approximately four acres, on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, adjacent to Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property. On the south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are across the creek and otherwise adjacent to the motel portion of the property. The former Motel Inn was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as the Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed circa 1925 when Monterey Street was the highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade. Many of the motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration; however the original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original restaurant. The site is also included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 3 2.2Project Description The project proposes to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn (Mission revival architectural style), along with a restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a courtyard setting. The remaining portions of the original structures would be retained and integrated into the project. The developer has agreed to design the new structures attached to the historic building remnants so that there is sufficient differentiation between the old and new. Fifty-two (52) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings withsome of the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a separate building at the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of the Motel Inn. The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short-term rental park. A total of 25 RV spaces are proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site (with permanent utility hookups) available for overnight guests. The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would occur with final review of the use permit. 2.3 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2 Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1 Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75% Parking Spaces 119 1302 Bicycle Parking 29 16 Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to HWY 101 1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit. 2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 4 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Design Conceptually, the project satisfies the Community Design Guidelines regarding commercial project design outside of the downtown area.Section 3.1 of the commercial project guidelines addresses the following design objectives: 1. Consider the city’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding area; 2. Avoid boxy structures with large flat wall planes; 3. Preserve the design integrity of historically significant structures; 4. Provide landscaping to help screen parking and storage areas; 5. Provide safe access to the site and design parking to avoid awkward turning movements; 6. Consider the need for signs and their appropriate scale early in the design process; 7. Locate outdoor equipment and trash enclosures in the least conspicuous parts of the site; 8. Neighborhood compatibility design objectives include having an appropriate design theme, having buildings of proportional scale and size, having appropriate building setbacks and massing and using appropriate colors, textures and building materials; 9. Architectural design should involve a consistent use of colors, materials and detailing throughout all elevations of the buildings. The proposed project is consistent with the above guidelines by keeping the scale of development relatively low profile, and it is well buffered from the adjoining neighborhood by creek vegetation and setback. The Mission Revival style reflects the historic parts of the former motel and avoids boxy building shapes, providing consistent design, materials and detailing (e.g., tiled gabled roofs, trellis and porch elements, cap pieces, recessed windows, small paned windows, wood framing above windows, and decorative exterior stairways). As there are no permanent buildings proposed on the other half of the property, primarily site plan considerations are directed toward the recreational vehicle park. The site plan is well- designed for its purpose easily accommodating the proposed 25 RVs. The 10 proposed Airstream vehicles will be of a more stationary nature, but still moveable. Therefore, what appears to be a “tandem parking” situation adjacent to the short-term RV parking, will not present a problem. Further, some of these mobile vehicles are shown to be located within an existing water easement (along the northerly property line) and an access easement (along the easterly property line). The developer will need to contact the water department to coordinate activities in the water line easement area. The 50 foot access easement is currently being researched by staff. However, this easement area should not present a problem for the site plan as the Airstreams are moveable, if and when required. (The applicant believes this is some kind of trail easement which would eventually go under the freeway to connect with a future trail system.) The Commission should also consider any screening issues of the RV park within its site plan orientation. Existing vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way on one side, and the riparian corridor of San Luis Creek on the other appear to provide excellent visual screening from the traveling public on Highway 101 and across the creek to the adjacent neighborhood. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 5 3.2General Plan Policy The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper Monterey Street region is concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants. Land Use Element policy 3.6.2is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses: “The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.” Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential neighborhoods as the first priority. Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3: “In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.” The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses. 3.3Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay) In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3). Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130 since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways. The The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key design criteria of Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 6 1.Creek setbacks Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan). 2.Building openings Openings facing the creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard setting surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the creek are detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the buildings contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the buildings appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of the patios and decks face inward towards the center of the site. 3.Screening between buildings and creek This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood. 4.Lighting between buildings and creek At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek. 5.Common driveways The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is instead alongside the proposed development. 6.Land Use compatibility The low scale motel use is consistent with the zoning, will not adversely affect the creek and will be well buffered from the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Also, in its conceptual review, the Planning Commission did not see a problem with the complementary use of a small RV parking area within the motel site. 7.Site drainage Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will guide the project design. 8.Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary. The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 7 3.4Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130: a.Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and lighting will be required.Highway vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way appears adequate to screen the property, and in particular the RV parking area. b.Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on Monterey Street while allowing easy access. Details of enclosures will need to be included with the final project design. c.Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking spaces; however, the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as guests of the hotel. d.Signs: The project will retain the historic free-standing motel sign. Other signage will be subject to future ARC review and approval. 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As proposed, the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101, and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The design of the motel project appears consistent with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130.The following items have been identified to formulate discussion: 1.RV Park creek buffering. The City’s Natural Resources Manager is recommending a wooden rail fence with appropriate signing to address potential trespass into the riparian area.This type of pedestrian restriction would still allow the visual enjoyment of the resource. 2.Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. $5& USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn –October 19, 2015) Page 8 Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features. 6.0ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity (Land Use) map 2. Reduced-scale project plans 3. Ordinance 1130 $5& C-T-S C/OS-40 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1-S C/OS-5C-T R-1-S R-1 R-1-S R-1 PF R-1 LO O M I S SAN L U I S SA N T A Y N E Z MON T E R E Y BU E N A V I S T A HOPE C O R R A L I T O S S A N M I G U E L BU E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP File No. 1035-2015 2223 Monterey ¯ $77$&+0(17 $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& $WWDFKPHQW $5& ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Construction of a new Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility, disguised as a water tower. ADDRESS: 224 Tank Farm Rd BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone: 781-7593 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FILE #: ARCH-1407-2015 FROM:Marcus Carloni,Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION:Continue consideration of this item to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take action on the Use Permit application associated with this project. Meeting Date:October 19, 2015 Item Number:2 l A ARC2 - 1 errrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued review of “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1299 Orcutt Road BY: David Watson, AICP, Contract Planner FROM: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0224-2014 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org RECOMMENDATION:Provide comments to the applicant and staff regarding nine (9) issue areas identified at the Commission’s 12-1-2014 initial conceptual review, which will be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the Vesting Tentative Map #3083. SITE DATA Applicant Robbins|Reed Representative Randy Russom, RRM Design Group Zoning R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential, Specific Plan) & R-4-SP (High Density Residential, Specific Plan) General Plan Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Site Area 18.29 acres Environmental Status An initial study of environmental impact has been prepared with a recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration which will be acted upon by City Council. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to develop a new project with a total of 172 residential units on an 18.3-acre site in the northwest corner of the OASP. This is the second review of the project by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). On December 1, 2014, the ARC was introduced to the project, discussed many aspects of the physical design for the site and proposed buildings and provided preliminary direction and requested applicant follow-up on several specific items (Attachment 4, ARC Directional Items). The ARC requested a second conceptual review of the project prior to the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) moving forward to hearings. This “focused” conceptual review hearing has been scheduled to provide the Commission with a status update and highlight changes made to the plans to address the ARC’s directional items. The term “focused” is used to describe the strategy to concentrate the ARC’s attention on overall site planning elements that affect the VTM and to evaluate project changes made to address previous Meeting Date:October19,2015 Item Number:3 VTM #3083 ARC3 - 1 eeeer ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 2 ARC comments. The project will return to the ARC for a more thorough evaluation of the project design with final architectural review after the VTM is approved. This report and the attached exhibits address the prior comments of the ARC. Attachment 5 includes a copy of the 12-1-14 ARC report, and the minutes of that meeting, for the Commission’s reference. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW This is a second conceptual review of the building designs and site amenities for a new residential subdivision. As noted in the first conceptual report (Attachment 4), the ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Chapter 4 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).Attachment 6 includes excerpts from Chapter 4 of the OASP. With tonight’s meeting, the ARC is being tasked with evaluating the responses of the applicant to previous directional items. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The project site consists of 18.3 acres, spanning two OASP designated parcels, the Mid-State and Maddalena parcels. The combination of the two parcels into a single project allows for a more complete design solution and efficient development pattern. There are several constraints that must be confronted with development of the site, including 52feet in grade changeacross the project site,two forks of Orcutt Creekwhich pass through the site, aPG&E easement along the entire southern property line, and OASPrequirements to provide vehicle and pedestrianaccess to future neighboring developments to boththe east and south. Immediately to the east of the site are two R-2-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the southeastof the site is the Wingate development(VTM #3044; 142 residential units; approved Oct, 2013), which is also within the OASP and zoned R-2-SP and R-3-SP. Properties to the north are zoned R-3 and R-1 and are developed with an assisted living facility and single familyhomes. Properties immediately to the west are zoned R-2 and are developed with mobile homes. 2.2Project Description The proposed project (aka “West Creek”) includes172 residential units (152.12 density units) on 18.29 acres. The units include a range of multi-generational housing sizes and styles within three general housing product types, including: 1) Traditional detached single-family homes (23 - R-2zoning); a. Lot sizes ranging from 4,500 s.f. to 7,239 s.f. 2) Small-lot, single-family “parkway homes”(44 - R-2zoning): and a. Lot sizes ranging from 3,150 s.f. to 4,736 s.f. ARC3 - 2 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 3 3) Condominiums with a mix of studios & one-bedroom and two-bedroom units (total of 105- R-4zoning). a. Seven separate buildings with the same mix of units in each building. i. Five (5) studios, one (1) one-bedroom unit, and nine (9) two-bedroom units in each of the seven buildings. ii. The 105 units are composed of 35 studios, 9 one-bedroom units, and 63 two-bedroom units. Consistent with the OASP land use designations, areas generally north of the East Fork of Orcutt Creek are developed with multi-family units at densities anticipated in the R-4 zone. Areas south of the creek are developed with small-lot single-family homes, appropriate for their R-2 designation and with a variety of home options and styles. In addition to the residential units, the project includes significant park and open space areas, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the OASP. Park and open space areas include the western extent of the site and Orcutt Creek as it crosses the site from east to west which achieves multi- purpose/multi use functions. These areas will provide for biological enhancement and drainage mitigation, play/turf area, open space, and seating areas, providing both active and passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision and the overall community as a whole. These areas would also be directly accessible to the existing mobile home park residents to the west and homes to the north, which are currently considered underserved by parks. To Condominium Units Traditional SFRs Parkway Homes ARC3 - 3 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 4 facilitate neighborhood interaction and provide for communal play areas for children, as well as to incorporate grading transitions and stepping between homes, parkways have been incorporated in between portions of the single-family parkway lots with front porches fronting onto and engaging with these spaces. 3.0 PROJECT DISCUSSION The principal purpose of the meeting is for the ARC to review responses to previous directional items and forward comments on to the Planning Commission for their review of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). The following paragraphs list the directional items in bold that the ARC identified with its first conceptual review of the project on 12-1-14(see Attachment 4 Directional Items and Attachment 5, 12-1-14 ARC Report), the applicant’s responses to these directional items (in italicized and quoted text),and staff’s analysis of how the items have been addressed. Responses to ARC’s 12-1-14 Directional Items: 1.The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second conceptual review prior to the Planning Commission's review of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). Applicant’s Response 1:“As requested, the project is returning to the ARC for a status update and focused review prior to the VTM going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.” Staff’s Analysis 1: Planning Commission review is tentatively scheduled for November 18th. The ARC’s comments will be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. 2.Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading details such as cut and fill quantities, retaining, and topographic maps. Applicant’s Response 2: “A full VTM package has been submitted to the City. Relevant information related to the requested grading details is part of the streamlined ARC package. Since the original site and grading plans were drafted, there have been numerous applicant changes to the overall grading proposal to limit the extent of needed earth movement and to limit the height and extent of retaining walls; these include: a.Site grading where cut and fill are essentially balanced, assuming 10-15% shrinkage during the compaction process. This is an obvious aesthetic benefit, consistent with City policies, and limits disruption to adjacent properties from construction traffic by limiting the need for import and export of materials. b.Many retaining walls along the riparian corridor have been eliminated. Only one ARC3 - 4 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 5 retaining wall is proposed over 6 feet in height [see staff note below] which is located internal to the site with limited visibility. Details on how this will be finished and screened will return with plans for final ARC review. c. Plans show a tiered set of retaining walls in the western section of the site in the open space area west of A Street. There is 5 feet of spacing between the two walls that will allow for landscaping to provide a softer appearance." (Note: staff was unable to find the referenced tiered set of retaining walls referenced by the applicant; additionally, the October 2nd VTM plans describe retaining walls up to 10’ in height within the multi-family areas) Staff’s Analysis 2:The applicants have proposed to conduct all site grading in a single phase of work, with residential construction completed over multiple construction phases over the life of the project. At this time, the applicants indicate a total of three (3) residential construction phases are anticipated.Vesting Tract Map #3083 includes preliminary grading plans, including topographic mapping of the existing site, on Sheets C-2 thru 4, C-8 and C-9 (see Attachment 7). Total proposed grading is broken down as follows: Proposed VTM#3083 West Creek R-2 Single Family Areas R-4 Condominium Areas Totals % of Totals Cut 38,400 cu yd 14,300 cu yd 52,700 cu yd 100% Fill 39,600 cu yd 6,500 cu yd 46,100 cu yd 87.5% Internal Import 1,200 cu yd ------ Internal Export --1,200 cu yd ---- “Shrinkage”--6,600 cu yd 6,600 cu yd 12.5% The applicant’s proposal relies on a combination of significant grading and re-contouring of the project site in order to accommodate the proposed development. Staff has highlighted the following for ARC consideration 1) the amount of grading associated with the multi-family area, 2)the height and expanse of retaining walls associated with the multi-family area, and 3) the amount of grading adjacent to the creek – within the creek setback. Staff has identified inconsistencies with the grading techniques as they relate to Community Design, Creekside Development standards and the OASP’s policy direction on landform alterations. Further discussion of these inconsistencies is provided in the following analysis dealing with the proposed grading plans and use of retaining walls. Grading and Retainings Walls – Multi-Family Area (8 Buildings Along Orcutt). The proposed design relies on a significant amount of “benching” of lots for the multi-family neighborhood. This grading concept helps with maintaining the higher density ranges for the R-4 designed area, but relies on significant grade transitions through the use of retaining walls, either in a stand-alone fashion, or incorporated into the multi-family buildings. For example, two (2) continuous retaining walls are proposed along the Orcutt ARC3 - 5 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 6 Road frontage to allow for a 10’-16’ drop from the roadway to the lower parking level paralleling this street. Continuing through the multi-family site in a southerly direction, two additional “tiers” of buildings step down the site at 10’ and 6’ drops respectively, with commensurate retaining walls. While largely hidden from view from off-site, these tiers result in large uniform benches for 4 of the 6 multi-family building footprints. Creekside Grading. Regarding grading in and along the eastern creek channel, the applicant’s propose a rather uniform 2:1 fill slope within the creek setback areas, daylighting at the top of the slopes at the various residential products fronting these channels. By adding the slopes above the creek top of bank, a deeper channel is created along this corridor. Again, these grading techniques are not consistent with creek setback standards and restrictions on the modifications of land and uses within these setback areas, as illustrated above. The Community Design and Subdivision Regulation standards encourage “fitting the site”1&2 minimizing the modification of natural slopes and contours, discourage the use of retaining walls and 2:1 slope banks (unless directly associated with utilities and required drainage),and limit grading within the creek setback. The proposed grading strategy is not consistent with these guidelines as indicated below and footnoted in this section. Subdivision Regulations Section16.18.020 General design requirements. A. Grading. Natural contours shall be preserved in new subdivisions to the greatest extent possible. Pad development prior to design approval of structures shall be prohibited unless directly associated with public improvements and required drainage. Retaining walls greater than three feet in height, 2:1 slopes or other significant landform alterations are strongly discouraged. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.1 Creekside Development “…the City intends to provide adequate buffer areas between creek corridors and adjacent development to protect this valuable community resource as a natural, scenic and recreational amenity. B. Each proposed structure shall comply with the following guidelines. 3: No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species, or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area.” Additionally, the City’s Construction Grading Standards (MC 15.04.020.II – J101.6)require sites to remain substantially in their natural state and discourage mass re-contouring; providing a table of “grade to remain in natural state” based on percent average cross slope 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 2.1A - General Design Principles. The following general principles should be considered in the design of all development: Fit the site. Each project should be designed with careful consideration of site character and constraints, and minimize changes to natural features, rather than altering a site to accommodate a stock building plan. Existing topography should be preserved where possible and excessive cuts or fills should be avoided. 2 Orcutt Area Specific Plan Section 4.1: “…Cookie-cutter type repetition should be avoided through individual variation and alternation of unit design that respect the views and shape of the lots. It is expected that individual subdivisions and planned developments will be used to implement the general densities identified within the Specific Plan to allow greater flexibility in lot layout and unit design such as zero lot-line units, garages in the rear of units and harmonious massing of units along residential streets.” ARC3 - 6 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 7 category (see Attachment 8, Construction Grading Standards). The standards recognize the needed flexibility on certain sites and indicate that grading specifically approved and/or conditioned in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map/development proposal, consistent with General Plan policies and other hillside standards, is not subject to the specific grading limitations noted in section J101.6. Discussion Items: Staff is looking to the ARC to provide feedback on the consistency of the grading strategy with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Subdivision Regulations and other applicable policies indicated above. Directional Items: Staff recommends the ARC consider the following directional items addressing the grading concept and its relative compliance with subdivision and community design regulations: a. Provide an alternative grading design that retains the natural contours along the creek channel (within the setback zone), including changes to the adjoining residential lots/units design. This may result in stepped or sloping lots with alternate residential unit designs for these unique lots. b. Explore further limits on grading within the multi-family areas resulting in fewer (or shorter) retaining walls. 3.Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditionalsingle- family homes and multi-family units across the creek, and showing pedestrian connections between the multi-family buildings. Applicant’s Response 3:“Sheet A7 of plans shows pedestrian linkages across the site and to adjacent properties. The goal of the design is to make the development pedestrian- friendly and connect to adjacent sites. The project includes a pedestrian pathway on the south side of the creek, beyond the single-family traditional lots, in the common open space area to link to A Street. This path links to the pathway in the open space area between the parkway homes to the south and allows for access to park areas and Orcutt Road beyond. Grade changes and ADA requirements limit the applicant from including a bridge across the creek to provide a direct link between the single-family areas and the R-4 component.” Staff’s Analysis 3:Staff believes the designs presented by the applicant do a very good job with internal circulation in the SFR neighborhoods, and provide for off-site connectivity, whether that is to future OASP projects such as Wingate, or to the nearby mobile home park access to encourage use of the public spaces within the OASP by existing city residents. In the case of pedestrian connectivity between the SFR and MFR areas, staff believes it would be possible to align a bridge or elevated crossing for both pedestrian and bicycles ARC3 - 7 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 8 between SFR Lots 3/4/5 to the MFR common building and park facility. The proposed grading plan suggests finished grade pad levels at SFR Lots 4/5 at +250.4’. A finished grade is not identified along the MFR side of East Orcutt Creek edge, but it appears a finished grade of +/- 240’ to 245’ could be created that would allow for the bridge crossing between these points with a 60’ span to meet ADA slope criteria. Some modifications to the finished grade of lots and separation of Lots 3-4-5 (or others in this area) would be needed, but staff recommends this connection to enhance neighborhood accessibility for compliance with ARC Directional Item #3. 4.Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. Applicant’s Response 4: “Sheets A1 and A7 of architectural plans shows the location of the most likely street and pedestrian linkages. The applicant has met with owners of adjacent mobile home park to discuss pedestrian and utility access between sites. An easement has been secured to formalize this access.” Staff’s Analysis 4:The connection shown for the MHP occur through Park Lot 77 on the VTM, roughly opposite the entry to the multi-family neighborhood at A-Street. The applicant has indicated they have an easement agreement to make this connection available to the MPH residents. The proposed connection into the Wingate project (VTM#3044) occurs close to A-3 Street, and Wingate’s Mont Azure Drive (see Attachment 7, Sheet C-4 and Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheets A-1 and A-7). Based on the approved Wingate plan, this appears to be the only location (other than A Street) where pedestrian and bicycle connectivity can occur between these projects. 5.Clarify parking proposals throughout the project. Applicant’s Response 5: “Sheets A5 and A7 of plans is a parking plan which details for all of the project components how parking consistent with City ordinance standards is provided. This plan demonstrates that the single-family “parkway” lots (alley loaded) and single- family traditional lots fully comply with City parking requirements. The parking for the multifamily portion of the project is a more complex calculation given the variety of unit sizes and target market. Attachment 3 includes a detailed discussion of the parking calculations and a rationale to support an automobile trip reduction exception to parking standards at this location.” Staff’s Analysis 5: The Commission discussed breaking up the Parkway homes “open parking courts” along A-2 Street. Staff believes this can be accomplished without compromising needed parking by introducing extensions of the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly, through the common street parking, towards A-2 Street (see Directional Item #8). ARC3 - 8 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 9 This would eliminate about 12 of these common spaces along A-2 Street, but would break up the otherwise long row of open parking along this street. Regarding the proposed parking reductions for the multi-family area, the applicant is seeking two (2) reductions. First, a 10% reduction for the provision of additional bicycle parking spaces. This will reduce required parking from 193 spaces to 174 spaces. Further, the applicant is asking for an additional 7% reduction by reducing required parking by another 14 spaces, to 160 total. This results in 21 guest spaces and 139 resident spaces for a 105 unit project, or a ratio of 1.32 spaces per unit. Staff is concerned that the parking standards are already liberal before suggested reductions, and that these reductions may result in insufficient parking to accommodate the project. Alternate reductions and/or contingency plans for adding parking should be explored with the applicant (see Directional Item #7). 6.With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of anyon- street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). Applicant’s Response 6:“This item would return to the ARC for final review. Sheet C4 (Attachment 7) of plans, the parking plan, shows locations of on-street parking.” Staff’s Analysis 6:Other than staff response #5 above, and unless directed otherwise, staff assumes the ARC wishes to address this in more detail with Final Design review. 7.Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing ofstructures and relationship to topography. Applicant’s Response 7: “A digital model of the project has not been prepared. If requested by the ARC, perspective views of project components or expanded sections could be prepared for final ARC review of the project design.” Staff’s Analysis 7:The applicant has not submitted the model requested by the ARC. If the Commission desires this model, a continuance would be in order to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission’s request.However, Staff is comfortable with the submitted grading and architectural plans, and the detail they provide at this time to demonstrate the massing and scale of the proposed project is in conformance to the OASP standards. 8.Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single-family products. Applicant’s Response 8: “Sheet A11 of plans includes a third elevation type for traditional lot single family residences. The “Neo-Craftsman” style was selected to have a style specifically called out in the OASP. The elevation has elements of the traditional style, but also has a contemporary edge to coordinate with other project building styles.” Staff’s Analysis 8: Staff supports this architectural concept, and feels it addresses the Commission’s broad-ranging discussion from the December 2014 meeting. ARC3 - 9 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 10 9.Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing thestreet with the traditional single -family products such as rear garages, side-loadedgarages and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem parking maybe supported to minimize the width ofdriveways. Applicant’s Response 9:“The R-2 component of the project has two distinct unit types, the traditional units (23) and the parkway units (44). The traditional units have individual driveways with access to the public street and street-facing garages. The parkway units have internal alley access to individual garages and no direct access to the public street. The distribution of unit types, with the fewer traditional units wrapping around the cluster of the parkway units, was intentionally done to minimize the overall number of units with garages facing the street. In accordance with the OASP, the R-2 project design attempts to maximize density while still providing compact and livable homes on smaller lots. Without the internal alley access for the parkway units, the design could potentially have had lots on the south and west sides of the public street that also had garages along the street. Therefore, the proposed design with twice as many R-2 units using alley access inherently minimizes garage doors facing the streets with 66% of the units have no garages facing the street. Other features of the project design for the traditional units that minimize the aesthetic impacts of individual garages facing the street are: a.Staggered setbacks –The garage doors have varied setbacks and are not all in alignment. b.Garage door locations – The doors are stepped back from the main façade allowing the front porches be the prominent feature along the street view. c.Detailing – Garage doors will include small divided upper windows for light and as accents, and natural garage door recesses will be treated with lintels, trellises and surrounds. d.Driveway paving – Pavers and non-traditional paving options are being considered.” Staff’s Analysis 9:The applicant’s did not submit analysis or revisions to their plans to reflect the suggested shared parking/driveway options, nor did they submit an analysis of what the implications would be on the proposed plan if these shared techniques were employed. Staff believes the use of shared driveways in this specific project may result in less desirable outcomes along the Traditional SFR homes as proposed. Staff’s primary concerns include: (1) shared driveways with garages on the street-side of the sites will necessitate a 25’ (shared) backing area between garages, and with a 20’-25’ depth to each garage oriented ARC3 - 10 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 11 parallel to the street, will result in 50’ wide lots dominated by garage views, and (2) common driveways will result in long shared driveways the full depth of lots, with garages oriented to the rear, creating long asphalt views along the common/shared property line, inhibiting landscaping or other improvements. Given these consequences on the smaller character of these lots, staff favors the extensive use of the alleys in the Parkway homes, but would discourage shared driveways on the limited number of Traditional SFR parcels. 4.0RECOMMENDATION ARC provide discussion and direction on the focused issues responded to by the applicants from the initial conceptual design. These comments/recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at their future hearing. Anticipate that a Final Design review by ARC will be conducted if the project is approved, with the following directional items: 1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans, the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional items. 2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City checklists. 3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park with final design plans. 5. Provide an alternative grading design that retains the natural contours along the creek channel (within the setback zone), including changes to the adjoining residential lots/units design. This may result in stepped or sloping lots with alternate residential unit designs for these unique lots. 6. Explore further limits on grading within the multi-family areas resulting in fewer (or shorter) retaining walls. 7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174 parking spaces (21 guest ARC3 - 11 ARCH-0224-2014(1299 Orcutt Road (West Creek)) Page 12 parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces) required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be implemented with the final design. 8. Introduce extensions of the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC. 5.0ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Plans - Included in ARC portfolios: 11” x 17” colored project plans 3. Applicant’s submittal letter, responses to ARC direction & detailed parking calculations 4. ARC Directional Items 5. 12-1-14 ARC report (without attachments) & minutes 6. OASP Community Design Chapter 4 excerpts 7. Plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3083 8. Construction Grading Standards (MC 15.04.020.II –J101.6) ARC3 - 12 Attachment 1 Project Vicinity Map SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY San Luis Obispo County Project Location Los Angel*■ Project Boundary in Luis Obfepo JASU SWCAfcNVlRONMtNfM CONSULTANTS Project Vicinity Map West Creek Development Project Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society. U.S. Geological Survey 7,5 Minute Series (Topographic) San Luis Obispo Quadrangle. ARC3 - 13 Project Location Map Prpjert BpumJgry Project Location Map West Creek Development Project Attachment 1 ARC3 - 14 T1 W E S T C R E E K WE S T C R E E K VI C I N I T Y M A P SH E E T I N D E X T1 T I T L E S H E E T C1 O A S P Z O N I N G M A P - E X I S T I N G C2 O A S P Z O N I N G M A P - P R O P O S E D C3 O A S P Z O N I N G M A P - E X I S T I N G v s . P R O P O S E D C4 T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P - G R A D I N G P L A N C5 T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P - G R A D I N G P L A N A1 I L L U S T R A T I V E S I T E P L A N A2 S I T E S E C T I O N S A3 C O N D O M I N I U M O P E N S P A C E A4 C O N D O M I N I U M P A R K I N G C A L C U L A T I O N S A5 P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N E X H I B I T A6 S I N G L E F A M I L Y P A R K I N G C A L C U L A T I O N S A7 O P E N S P A C E E X H I B I T A8 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y S T R E E T V I E W A9 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 0 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 1 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 2 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 3 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 4 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y E L E V A T I O N S A1 5 S I N G L E - F A M I L Y N E I G H B O R H O O D V I E W A1 6 M U L T I - F A M I L Y - C L U B H O U S E A1 7 M U L T I - F A M I L Y - B U I L D I N G F L O O R P L A N A1 8 M U L T I - F A M I L Y - P E R S P E C T I V E A1 9 M U L T I - F A M I L Y - P E R S P E C T I V E A2 0 M U L T I - F A M I L Y - P E R S P E C T I V E PR O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N OW N E R : A R C H I T E C T : RO B B I N S | R E E D R R M D E S I G N G R O U P 13 0 8 M O N T E R E Y S T , S U I T E 2 1 0 3 7 6 5 S . H I G U E R A S T , S U I T E 1 0 2 SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 C O N T A C T : R A N D Y R U S S O M PH O N E : 8 0 5 - 5 4 3 - 1 7 9 4 E M A I L : R W R U S S O M @ R R M D E S I G N . C O M PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : Th e p r o j e c t i s 1 7 2 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s o n a n 1 8 . 2 9 a c r e s i t e s p a n n i n g t w o O A S P de s i g n a t e d p a r c e l s , t h e M i d - S t a t e a n d M a d d a l e n a P a r c e l . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f th e t w o p a r c e l s i n t o a s i n g l e p r o j e c t a l l o w s f o r a m o r e c o m p l e t e d e s i g n s o l u t i o n ZK L F K H P E U D F H V V L W H L V V X H V W K D W R W K H U Z L V H Z R X O G E H K D Y H F U H D W H G D O H V V H I À F L H Q W so l u t i o n . T h e s i n g l e p r o j e c t s o l u t i o n h a s a l l o w e d f o r t h e t a r g e t O A S P u n i t c o u n t w h i l e pr o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l o p e n s p a c e a n d c o m m u n i t y a m e n i t i e s . T h e p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s tw o d i s t i n c t p r o j e c t a r e a s z o n e d R - 2 & R - 4 s e r v i n g a w i d e r a n g e o f h o u s i n g n e e d s wi t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . SI T E I N F O R M A T I O N : AP N : ( M i d - S t a t e P a r c e l ) 0 7 6 - 4 8 1 - 0 0 2 ( M a d d a l e n a P a r c e l ) 0 7 6 - 4 8 1 - 0 0 1 GR O S S S I T E A R E A : 1 8 . 2 9 A C R E S OA S P C O M B I N E D E S T I M A T E D R 2 U N I T S : 5 2 - 5 4 D . U (M a d d a l e n a = 0 R 2 , M i d - S t a t e = 5 2 - 5 4 R 2 ) OA S P C O M B I N E D E S T I M A T E D R 4 U N I T S : 91 - 1 0 3 D . U (M a d d a l e n a = 7 9 - 8 9 R 4 , M i d - S t a t e = 1 2 - 1 4 R 4 ) TO T A L O A S P C O M B I N E D E S T I M A T E D U N I T S 1 4 3 - 1 5 7 D. U (T a b l e A - 2 O A S P ) PR O J E C T S T A T I S T I C S PR O P O S E D R - 2 D E V E L O P M E N T A R E A : PR O P O S E D R - 2 T R A D I T I O N A L U N I T S : 23 S F R L O T S (T y p i c a l 3 B e d / 2 1/ 2 Ba t h w i t h a t t a c h e d g a r a g e ) PR O P O S E D R - 2 P A R K W A Y U N I T S : 4 4 S F R U N I T S (3 B e d / 2 1/ 2 B a t h w i t h a t t a c h e d g a r a g e ) TO T A L R 2 U N I T S ( D e n s i t y U n i t s ) 6 7 U N I T S ( 6 7 D U ) TO T A L R 2 A R E A U N D E R D E V E L O P M E N T 7 . 8 2 A C R E S PR O P O S E D D E N S I T Y 8 . 5 6 U N I T S / A C R E PR O P O S E D R - 4 D E V E L O P M E N T A R E A : Se v e n ( 7 ) B u i l d i n g a t F i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) U n i t s 1 0 5 M F R U N I T S 35 - S t u d i o U n i t s ( 5 p e r b u i l d i n g ) 3 5 U N I T S ( 1 7 . 5 D U ) 63 - T w o b e d r o o m U n i t s ( 9 p e r b u i l d i n g ) 6 3 U N I T S ( 6 3 D U ) 7 - O n e B e d r o o m U n i t s ( 1 p e r b u i l d i n g ) 7 U N I T S ( 4 . 6 2 D U ) TO T A L R 4 U N I T S ( D e n i s t y U n i t s ) 1 0 5 U N I T S ( 8 5 . 1 2 D U ) TO T A L R 4 A R E A U N D E R D E V E L O P M E N T 3 . 0 9 A C R E S PR O P O S E D D E N S I T Y 2 7 . 5 U N I T S / A C R E TO T A L P R O P O S E D D E V E L O P M E N T TO T A L D E V E L O P E D U N I T S 1 7 2 U N I T S (1 5 2 . 1 2 D U ) TO T A L D E V E L O P E D A R E A 10 . 9 1 A C R E S PA R K I N G C A L C U L A T I O N S : R- 4 D E V E L O P M E N T A R E A : R- 4 P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : 9 - ( 2 B E D U N I T S ) = 9 x 2 . 0 = 1 8 . 0 x 7 = 1 2 6 S P A C E S 1 - ( 1 B E D U N I T ) = 1 x 1 . 5 = 1 . 5 x 7 = 1 0 . 5 S P A C E S 5 - ( S T U D I O S ) = 5 x 1 . 0 = 5 . 0 x 7 = 3 5 . 0 S P A C E S GU E S T P A R K I N G = 1 5 / 5 U N I T S = 3 x 7 = 2 1 . 0 S P A C E S TO T A L P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : ( 1 0 5 U N I T S ) 19 2 . 5 S P A C E S R- 4 P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D : 2 G A R A G E S P A C E S B U I L D I N G ( 7 ) = 6 3 S P A C E S SU R F A C E P A R K I N G = 9 7 S P A C E S TO T A L P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D = 16 0 S P A C E S R- 4 D E V E L O P M E N T A R E A : RE Q U I R E D P A R K I N G - T A B L E 6 1 P E R S T U D I O A P A R T M E N T , 1 - 1 / 2 F O R F I R S T B E D R O O M P L U S 1 / 2 F O R E A C H A D D I T I O N A L BE D R O O M I N A U N I T , P L U S 1 F O R E A C H F I V E U N I T S IN R E S I D E N T I A L A P A R T M E N T P R O J E C T S I N V O L V I N G 1 0 O R M O R E U N I T S , 5 0 % O F S P A C E S MA Y B E C O M P A C T . C O M P A C T S P A C E S S H A L L B E C L U S T E R E D . U S E O F C O M P A C T SP A C E S R E Q U I R E S A P P R O V A L O F A N E X C E P T I O N B Y T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DI R E C T O R O R T H E A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W C O M M I S S I O N . ( C I T Y E N G I N E E R I N G ST A N D A R D # 2 2 3 0 - C O M P A C T S P A C E S ) (N O T E : N O C O M P A C T S P A C E S A R E P R O P O S E D ) * R E Q U I R E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E A F T E R B I C Y C L E I N C R E A S E 1 7 4 S P A C E S PR O P O S E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 16 0 S P A C E S *1 0 % ( 1 8 S P A C E ) R E D U C T I O N . 10 % P A R K I N G R E D U C T I O N R E Q U E S T F O R 1 0 % B I C Y C L E I N C R E A S E . NO T E : F O R T H E R E M A I N I G S H O R T F A L L 1 7 4 - 1 6 0 = 1 4 S P A C E S , A T R I P R E D U C T I O N R E Q U E S T I S P R O P O S E D RE Q U I R E D M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S 1 P E R E V E R Y 2 0 C A R S P A C E S . P R O J E C T S T H A T P R O V I D E M O R E M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S TH A N R E Q U I R E D M A Y R E D U C E T H E R E Q U I R E D C A R S P A C E S A T T H E R A T E O F 1 C A R F O R EA C H 5 M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S , U P T O A 1 0 % R E D U C T I O N , S U B J E C T T O T H E A P P R O V A L OF T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D I R E C T O R . RE Q U I R E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 9 M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S PR O P O S E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 10 M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S RE Q U I R E D B I C Y C L E S P A C E S - T A B L E 6 . 5 TW O S P A C E S F O R E V E R Y U N I T . P R O J E C T S T H A T P R O V I D E M O R E B I C Y C L E S P A C E S TH A N R E Q U I R E D M A Y R E D U C E T H E R E Q U I R E D C A R S P A C E S A T T H E R A T E O F 1 CA R F O R E A C H 5 B I C Y C L E S P A C E S , U P T O A 1 0 % R E D U C T I O N , S U B J E C T T O T H E AP P R O V A L O F T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D I R E C T O R . RE Q U I R E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 8 T O T A L B I C Y C L E S P A C E S PR O P O S E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 10 T O T A L B I C Y C L E S P A C E S - S H O R T T E R M ( U N C O V E R E D ) RE Q U I R E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 2 1 0 T O T A L L O N G T E R M B I C Y C L E S P A C E S PR O P O S E D F O R R - 4 Z O N E 30 5 T O T A L B I C Y C L E S P A C E S - L O N G T E R M ( C O V E R E D ) *( 9 5 A D D I T I O N A L S P A C E S P R O P O S E D F O R A 0 % O R 1 9 C A R S P A C E R E D U C T I O N R E Q U E S T ) IN C L U S I O N A R Y H O U S I N G : Pe r A p p e n d i x P , t a b l e s 2 a n d 2 A , C i t y O f S a n L u i s O b i s p o H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 17 2 u n i t s x 1 5 % = 2 5 . 8 Av e r a g e U n i t S i z e : 17 2 u n i t s t o t a l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 1 6 , 0 0 0 S F = 1 2 5 6 S F Pr o j e c t D e n s i t y ( d e n s i t y u n i t s p e r n e t a c r e ) : 15 2 . 1 2 D U / 1 0 . 9 1 n e t a c r e s = 1 3 . 9 4 D U / A C In c l u s i o n a r y H o u s i n g A d j u s t m e n t F a c t o r p e r t a b l e 2 A = . 2 5 25 . 8 U N I T S x . 2 5 = 6 . 4 5 ( r o u n d e d d o w n t o 6 ) TO T A L R E Q U I R E D I N C L U S I O N A R Y U N I T S Lo w i n c o m e u n i t s T W O ( 2 ) R E Q Mo d e r a t e i n c o m e u n i t s F O U R ( 4 ) R E Q TO T A L I N C L U S I O N A R Y U N I T S R E Q U I R E D 6 U N I T S PR O P O S E D I N C L U S I O N A R Y U N I T S Al l u n i t s t o b e i n t h e R 4 p r o j e c t a s r e n t a l u n i t s Lo w i n c o m e u n i t s : O N E ( 1 ) T W O B E D U N I T - T H R E E ( 3 ) S T U D I O U N I T S Mo d e r a t e i n c o m e u n i t s : T W O ( 2 ) T W O B E D U N I T - F O U R ( 4 ) S T U D I O U N I T S T O T A L I N C L U S I O N A R Y U N I T S P R O P O S E D - 1 0 U N I T S TI T L E S H E E T ARC3 - 15 C1 W E S T C R E E K OA S P L A N D U S E M A P - E X I S T I N G SC A L E : 1 ” = 5 0 ’ N (8. 4 8 A C ) (5. 4 0 A C ) (3. 3 1 A C ) (1. 2 2 A C ) 7. 3 2 A C 5. 0 5 A C 2. 7 5 A C 1. 5 9 A C PG & E E a s e m e n t 1 . 5 8 A C ARC3 - 16 C2 W E S T C R E E K PR O P O S E D D E V E L O P M E N T LA N D U S E P A T T E R N SC A L E : 1 ” = 5 0 ’ 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 N ARC3 - 17 C3 W E S T C R E E K N CO M P O S I T E O F E X I S T I N G Z O N I N G & D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N ARC3 - 18 C4 W E S T C R E E K TE N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P - GR A D I N G P L A N SC A L E : 1 ” = 3 0 ’ ARC3 - 19 C5 W E S T C R E E K TE N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P - GR A D I N G P L A N SC A L E : 1 ” = 3 0 ’ # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ARC3 - 20 A1 W E S T C R E E K O R C O R C UT T UT T RO A D OA D RO A D AD “ A - 4 “ A - 4 “ A - 4 4 “ A - 4 44 “ A - 4 A - 4 “ A - 4 4 “ S “ S “ S “ S “ S SS “ S TT R E E T R E E T R E E T R E E T R E E TT R E TTTTT “A-3“A-3“A-3“A“A-3“A-3“A-3“A-3“AA“A-3A ” ST” ST ST” ST” ST” ST” ST ST STSTSTST REETREETREETREETREREEREETRRERERE “ A - 2 “ A - 2 “ A - 2 2 ” S T ” S T S T ” S T TTTTT R E E T R E E T R E E T TTTT E T TT “A” “A” A A A STRESTRESSSTRESSSSTRESSETETETETET E A S T O R C U T T C R E E K IL L U S T R A T I V E S I T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 ” = 5 0 ’ LE G E N D C O N D O M I N I U M U N I T S ( 1 0 5 U N I T S ) F R O N T L O A D E D S I N G L E F A M I L Y H O M E S ( 2 3 ) A L L E Y L O A D E D S I N G L E F A M I L Y H O M E S ( 4 4 ) ARC3 - 21 A2 W E S T C R E E K SI T E P L A N K E Y SC A L E : N T S $$ $ $% &' ( ) * &/ 8 % + 2 8 6 ( 32 2 / 1 2 3 SI T E S E C T I O N 1 SC A L E : 1 ” = 3 0 ’ SI T E S E C T I O N 2 SC A L E : 1 ” = 3 0 ’ SI T E S E C T I O N 3 SC A L E : 1 ” = 3 0 ’ AL L E Y “A ” S T R E E T FL A T PA R K “A 3 ” S T R E E T AL L E Y AL L E Y FL A T PA R K DR I V E A I S L E LO W E R E D PA R K I N G SL O P E D LA N D S C A P E LA N D S C A P E BU F F E R PE D E S T R I A N PA T H OR C U T T R D . 6’ R E T A I N I N G W A L L SE C T I O N C - O R C U T T R O A D F R O N T A G E SC A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ SE C T I O N B - N E I G H B O R H O O D P A R K W A Y SC A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ SE C T I O N A - S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E A R RE T A I N I N G W A L L SC A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ SF R L O T PR I V A T E YA R D SF R L O T PA T H PA T H P R I V A T E YA R D SL O P E D LA N D SC A P E PL PL PL A N T I N G FL A T P A R K AR E A 20 ’ R E A R YA R D RE T A I N I N G WA L L A N D LA N D S C A P E SI T E S E C T I O N S A B B A C C 29 0 . 0 0 ’ 24 0 . 0 0 ’ OR C U T T R O A D SE C T I O N C B E N E F I T S 1) P A R K I N G S C R E E N E D F R O M O R C U T ( L O W E R E L E V . & I N T E R V E N I N G V E G E T A T I O N ) 2) T H R E E - S T O R Y A P P E A R S A S 2 L E V E L S F R O M O R C U T T SE C T I O N A B E N E F I T S 1) T I E R E D W A L L S W I T H I N T E R V E N I N G P L A N T I N G 2) M O R E G R A D U A L T R A N S I T I O N ; A E S T H E T I C A L L Y S U P E R I O R SE C T I O N B B E N E F I T S 1) E L E V A T I O N C H A N G E S R E S P E C T N A T U R A L T O P O G R A P H Y ( N O M A S S I V E R E - C O N T O U R I N G ) 2) P R O V I D E S B O T H U S A B L E P R I V A T E Y A R D S & C O M M O N O P E N S P A C E S 3) A V O I D S N E E D F O R H I G H R E T A I N I N G W A L L S ARC3 - 22 A3 W E S T C R E E K CO N D O M I N I U M O P E N S P A C E A B C F D E G 19 5 0 s f 93 0 0 s f 2, 5 7 0 s f 68 5 s f R4 Z ONE LEGEND PRIV ATE O PEN S PACE COMMON O UTDOOR OPEN S PACE COMMON R ECREATIO N S PACE PRIV ATE S TORAGE S PACE 82 0 s f CLUBHOUS E PR I V A T E O P E N S P A C E & S T O R A G E P R O P O S E D UN I T T Y P E UN I T 1 0 1 - 1 B E D SP A C E T Y P E P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E SQ . F T . / U N I T TO T A L S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E (7 B L D G S . X U N I T UN I T 1 0 2 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 3 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 4 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 5 - S T U D I O UN I T 2 0 1 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 2 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 3 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 4 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 5 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 6 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 7 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 8 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 9 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 1 0 - S T U D I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O 2N D F L O O R D E C K 2N D F L O O R D E C K 2N D F L O O R D E C K 2N D F L O O R D E C K 2N D / 3 R D F L O O R D E C K 2N D / 3 R D F L O O R D E C K 2N D / 3 R D F L O O R D E C K 2N D / 3 R D F L O O R D E C K 2N D F L O O R D E C K 2N D / 3 R D F L O O R D E C K 13 1 17 5 17 5 17 5 16 1 91 7 1, 2 2 5 1, 2 2 5 1, 2 2 5 1, 1 2 7 10 5 73 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 19 3 1, 3 5 1 18 2 1, 2 7 4 23 6 1, 6 5 2 17 7 1, 2 3 9 16 7 1, 1 6 9 10 0 70 0 PR I V A T E S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E P E R B L D G . PR I V A T E S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E O N - S I T E 2, 2 9 2 16 , 0 4 4 PR I V A T E O P E N S P A C E & S T O R A G E R E Q U I R E D UN I T T Y P E UN I T 1 0 1 - 1 B E D SP A C E T Y P E P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E SQ . F T . / U N I T TO T A L S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E (7 B L D G S . X U N I T ) UN I T 1 0 2 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 3 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 4 - S T U D I O UN I T 1 0 5 - S T U D I O UN I T 2 0 1 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 2 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 3 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 4 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 5 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 6 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 7 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 8 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 0 9 - 2 B E D UN I T 2 1 0 - S T U D I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O GR O U N D P A T I O 2N D F L O O D E C K 2N D F L O O D E C K 2N D F L O O D E C K 2N D F L O O D E C K 3R D F L O O D E C K 3R D F L O O D E C K 3R D F L O O D E C K 2N D F L O O D E C K 2N D F L O O D E C K 3R D F L O O D E C K 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 PR I V A T E S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E P E R B L D G . PR I V A T E S Q . F T . O P E N S P A C E O N - S I T E 1, 5 0 0 10 , 5 0 0 PR I V A T E S T O R A G E CU . F T . / U N I T 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 PR I V A T E C U . F T . S T O R A G E P E R B L D G . 3 , 0 0 0 PR I V A T E S T O R A G E CQ . F T . / U N I T 22 5 29 2 29 2 29 2 29 2 25 0 23 5 23 5 23 5 25 0 21 6 24 3 25 0 21 6 20 7 PR I V A T E C U . F T . S T O R A G E P E R B L D G . 3 , 7 3 0 CO M M O N O P E N S P A C E R E Q U I R E D TY P E CO M M O N SP A C E T Y P E S Q . F T . / U N I T RE C R E A T I O N C L U B H O U S E OU T D O O R O P E N S P A C E 1 0 0 / U N I T 20 / U N I T I N D O O R O R 40 / U N I T O U T D O O R CO M M O N O P E N S P A C E P R O P O S E D TY P E CO M M O N SP A C E T Y P E S Q . F T . RE C R E A T I O N C L U B H O U S E OU T D O O R O P E N S P A C E 1 3 , 3 7 5 1, 9 5 0 TO T A L S Q . F T . O N - S I T E P R O P O S E D 1 5 , 3 2 5 TO T A L S Q . F T . O N - S I T E R E Q U I R E D 10 , 5 0 0 2, 1 0 0 ( I N D O O R ) 12 , 6 0 0 TO T A L S Q . F T . 73 5 73 5 73 5 LEGEND PRIV ATE O PEN S PACE COMMON O UTDOOR OPEN S PACE COMMON R ECREATIO N S PACE PRIV ATE S TORAGE S PACE UN I T 2 0 9 UN I T 2 0 8 UN I T 2 0 7 UN I T 2 0 6 UN I T 2 0 1 U N I T 2 0 2 U N I T 2 0 4 UN I T 2 0 5 UN I T 2 0 3 74 SF 51 SF 10 0 SF 10 5 SF 15 3 S F UN I T 2 1 0 65 SF 10 5 S F 21 6 CF 21 6 CF 24 3 CF 25 0 CF 20 7 CF 10 5 S F 10 5 S F 48 SF UN I T 2 0 9 UN I T 2 0 8 UN I T 2 0 7 UN I T 2 0 6 UN I T 2 0 1 UN I T 2 0 2 U N I T 2 0 3 UN I T 2 0 5 UN I T 2 0 3 11 9 SF 11 6 SF 12 9 SF 11 7 SF 23 5 CF 23 5 CF 23 5 CF 25 0 CF 25 2 C F 83 SF UN I T 1 0 4 UN I T 1 0 3 UN I T 1 0 2 UN I T 1 0 1 UN I T 1 0 5 17 5 SF 16 1 SF 17 5 SF 17 5 SF 13 1 SF 10 8 CF 11 7 CF 14 6 CF 14 6 CF 25 0 CF 14 6 CF 14 6 CF GA R A G E 1 G A R A G E 2 G A R A G E 3 G A R A G E 4 G A R A G E 5 G A R A G E 6 G A R A G E 7 G A R A G E 8 G A R A G E 9 14 6 CF 14 6 CF 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 TY P . B L D G . P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E & ST O R A G E P L A N - 2 N D F L O O R 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 TY P . B L D G . P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E & ST O R A G E P L A N - 3 R D F L O O R TY P . B L D G . P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E & ST O R A G E P L A N G R O U N D F L O O R ARC3 - 23 A4 W E S T C R E E K CO N D O M I N I U M P A R K I N G A B C F D E G 1 97 1 16 0 55 67 23 LE G E N D GA R A G E D P A R K I N G (6 3 P A R K I N G S T A L L S ) MO T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G (1 0 S T A L L S ) SH O R T T E R M B I K E P A R K I N G (1 0 B I K E S P A C E S ) LO N G T E R M B I K E P A R K I N G (2 1 0 B I K E S P A C E S ) SU R F A C E P A R K I N G (9 7 P A R K I N G S T A L L S ) AD D I T I O N A L O F F - S I T E P A R K I N G (2 5 P A R K I N G S T A L L S ) R4 Z O NE 22 S P A C E S 3 S P A C E S CLUBHOUS E Su m m a r y F e a t u r e s Pa r k i n g N u m b e r s Re q u i r e d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g (2 s p a c e s p e r u n i t . ) 21 0 l o n g t e r m r e q u i r e d ; 21 0 p r o v i d e d Pr o v i d e d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g fo r 1 0 % c a r r e d u c t i o n . 95 l o n g t e r m r e q u i r e d ; 95 p r o v i d e d ( 1 9 x 5 = 9 5 s p a c e s ) To t a l l o n g t e r m b i c y l e pa r k i n g s p a c e s p r o v i d e d 30 5 p r o v i d e d Re q u i r e d s h o r t t e r m b i c y c l e pa r k i n g s p a c e s . (5 % o f r e q u i r e d c a r p a r k i n g ) 8 s h o r t t e r m r e q u i r e d ; 8 p r o v i d e d ( . 0 5 x 1 6 0 = 8 s p a c e s ) RE Q U I R E D P A R K I N G - T A B L E 6 1 P E R S T U D I O A P A R T M E N T , 1 - 1 / 2 F O R F I R S T B E D R O O M P L U S 1 / 2 F O R EA C H A D D I T I O N A L B E D R O O M I N A U N I T , P L U S 1 F O R E A C H F I V E U N I T S IN R E S I D E N T I A L A P A R T M E N T P R O J EC T S I N V O L V I N G 1 0 O R M O R E UN I T S , 5 0 % O F S P A C E S M A Y B E C O M P A C T . C O M P A C T S P A C E S SH A L L B E C L U S T E R E D . U S E O F C O M P A C T S P A C E S R E Q U I R E S AP P R O V A L O F A N E X C E P T I O N B Y T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DI R E C T O R O R T H E A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W C O M M I S S I O N . ( C I T Y EN G I N E E R I N G S T A N D A R D # 2 2 3 0 - C O M P A C T S P A C E S ) ( N O T E : N O CO M P A C T S P A C E S A R E P R O P O S E D ) RE Q U I R E D B I C Y C L E S P A C E S - T A B L E 6 . 5 5% O F R E Q U I R E D A U T O S P A C E S . P R O J E C TS T H A T P R O V I D E M O R E B I C Y C L E S P A C E S TH A N R E Q U I R E D M A Y R E D U C E T H E R E Q U I R E D C A R S P A C E S A T T H E R A T E O F 1 C A R FO R E A C H 5 B I C Y C L E S P A C E S , U P T O A 1 0 % R E D U C T I O N , S U B J E C T T O T H E A P P R O V A L OF T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D I R E C T O R . M A N D A T E D 2 B I K E S P A C E S P E R U N I T RE Q U I R E D M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S 1 P E R E V E R Y 2 0 C A R S P A C E S . P R O J E C T S T H A T P R O V I D E M O R E M O T O R C Y C L E SP A C E S T H A N R E Q U I R E D M A Y R E D U C E T H E R E Q U I R E D C A R S P A C E S A T T H E RA T E O F 1 C A R F O R E A C H 5 M O T O R C Y C L E S P A C E S , U P T O A 1 0 % R E D U C T I O N , SU B J E C T T O T H E A P P R O VA L O F T H E C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D I R E C T O R . Su m m a r y F e a t u r e s P a r k i n g N u m b e r s Re q u i r e d m o t o r c y l e p a r k i n g (1 p e r e v e r y 2 0 c a r s . ) 19 3 / 2 0 = 1 0 r e q u i r e d ; 10 p r o v i d e d PA R K I N G A N A L Y S I S VE H I C L E P A R K I N G S U M M A R Y B I C Y C L E P A R K I NG S U M M A R Y M O T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G S U M M A R Y NO N R E Q U I R E D A D D I T I O N A L L O N G T E R M BI K E P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D F O R V E H I C L E PA R K I N G R E D U C T I O N (9 5 P A R K I N G S T A L L S ) UN I T 1 0 4 UN I T 1 0 3 UN I T 1 0 2 UN I T 1 0 1 UN I T 1 0 5 GA R A G E 1 G A R A G E 2 G A R A G E 3 G A R A G E 4 G A R A G E 5 G A R A G E 6 G A R A G E 7 G A R A G E 8 G A R A G E 9 18 1 7 29 UN I T 2 0 9 UN I T 2 0 8 UN I T 2 0 7 UN I T 2 0 6 UN I T 2 0 1 U N I T 2 0 2 UN I T 2 0 4 UN I T 2 0 5 UN I T 2 0 3 UN I T 2 1 0 33 30 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 1S T F L O O R P A R K I N G S P A C E P L A N 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 2N D F L O O R P A R KI N G S P A C E P L A N BI K E S E R V I C E FA C I L I T Y LO C A T I O N TY P I C A L U N I T P L A N 7 7 ARC3 - 24 A5 W E S T C R E E K CO N D O M I N I U M - P E D E S T R I A N CI R C U L A T I O N E X H I B I T A B C F D E G 2, 5 7 0 s f R4 Z O N E LEGEND PEDESTRIA N PATHWAY ARC3 - 25 A6 W E S T C R E E K NO N R E Q U I R E D A D D T I O N A L L O T S P E C I F I C GU E S T P A R K I N G NO N R E Q U I R E D A D D T I O N A L G U E S T PA R K I N G ARC3 - 26 A7 W E S T C R E E K OP E N S P A C E E X H I B I T O P E N S P A C E A R E A S DE S C R I P T I O N A R E A C I T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S I N P A R K . 6 5 A C C I T Y C O M M U N I T Y C R E E K P A R K . 3 1 A C C I T Y T R A I L S - S E A T I N G - O P E N S P A C E . 6 3 A C C I T Y C O M M U N I T Y C O M M O N L I N E A R P A R K . 5 4 A C R I P A R I A N O P E N S P A C E 1 . 5 3 A C TO T A L : 3 . 6 6 A C N E I G H B O R H O O D C O M M U N I T Y G A R D E N . 1 5 A C M U L T I - F A M I L Y C O M M O N L A N D S C A P E . 5 5 A C BA S I N & B I O F I L T R A T I O N A R E A S ( E X C L U D E S B A S I N P A R K ) . 6 4 A C TO T A L : 1 . 3 4 A C MU L T I - F A M I L Y C O M M O N LA N D S C A P E RI P A R I A N O P E N S P A C E (R E F E R T O S H E E T A - 4 ) BA S I N A N D B I O F I L T R A T I O N A R E A S CI T Y C O M M U N I T Y C R E E K P A R K PA R K D E S I G N T O B E I N CO O R D I N A T I O N W I T H P A R K S AN D R E C D E P A R T M E N T CI T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S I N P A R K CO M M O N P A R K W A Y O R C O R C O R C UT T UT T UT T RO A D RO A D RO A D ORO A “ A - 4 “ A - 4 “ A - 4 “ A - 4 “ S “ S “ S “ S “ S T R E E T R E E T R E E T R E E T TTTTT “A-3“A-3“A-3“A-3AAAA-3“A-3A-3AA ” ST” STTSTST ST” ST” STST ST REETREREETREETREETREREREET “ A - 2 “ A - 2 AA - 2 A “ A - 2 AAA - 2 22 AAAAA ” S T ” S T ” S T E T R E E T R E E T R E E T “A” “A” A“AA”” STRESTRESTRSTRERETETETT E A S T O R C U T T C R E E K ARC3 - 27 A8 W E S T C R E E K VI E W F R O M A S T R E E T SI N G L E - F A M I L Y N E I G H B O R H O O D ARC3 - 28 A9 W E S T C R E E K SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - T R A D I T I O N A L L O T SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” SI N G L E L E V E L 5 0 X 9 6 ’ L O T EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 2 EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 1 UP R DW W D 5' - 0 " 40 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 60' - 0" 4' - 0"16' - 0" M. B E D 12 ' 4 " X 1 4 ' 3 " M. B A T H 11 ' 0 " X 1 1 ' 0 " BE D 2 11 ' 0 " X 1 0 ' 0 " BE D 1 11 ' 0 " X 1 0 ' 0 " BA T H 10 ' 0 " X 5 ' 2 " M. C L . 2- C A R GA R A G E 20 ' 5 " X 2 0 ' 5 " PO W . 3' 6 " X 7 ' 7 " P. DI N I N G / O F F I C E / FL E X 13 ' 0 " X 1 4 ' 0 " KI T C H E N 14 ' 0 " X 1 6 ' 0 " LI V I N G 15 ' 6 " X 1 6 ' 6 " EN T R Y 6' 2 " X 7 ' 0 " NO O K 14 ' 0 " X 9 ' 0 " LA U N D . 7' 0 " " X 5 ' 4 " L. 20' - 0" 2' - 0 " 3' - 0 " PO R C H TECH L. AR E A GR O U N D F L O O R 1 8 3 0 S F GA R A G E 4 6 3 S F 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 GR O U N D F L O O R P L A N ARC3 - 29 A1 0 W E S T C R E E K D W R DW UP UP 5' - 0 " 35 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 6' - 0"10' - 0" LI V I N G 18 ' 0 " X 1 7 ' 3 " DI N I N G 15 ' 4 " X 9 ' 4 " KI T C H E N 14 ' 1 1 " X 1 5 ' 4 " BA T H 5'6 " X 9 ' 0 " FL E X RO O M 9'1 1 " X 1 1 ' 8 " 2- C A R GA R A G E 20 ' 5 " X 2 0 ' 3 " M. C L . 10 ' 1 " X 8 ' 1 " M. B A T H 10 ' 1 " X 1 3 ' 0 " M. B E D 16 ' 0 " X 1 2 ' 8 " 20' - 0"64' - 0"16' - 0" P. LA U N D R Y 6' 6 " X 6 ' 6 " PO R C H L 36 ' - 6 " AR E A GR O U N D F L O O R 1 5 2 2 S F SE C O N D F L O O R 5 0 5 S F 20 2 7 S F BE D 2 15 ' 3 " X 1 4 ' 1 " BE D 3 11 ' 2 " X 1 0 ' 4 " BA T H 5' 3 " X 1 3 ' 0 " 19 ' - 9 " 28' - 6" 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N TW O S T O R Y - O P T I O N 1 TW O S T O R Y - O P T I O N 2 SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - T R A D I T I O N A L L O T SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 30 A1 1 W E S T C R E E K AR E A SE C O N D F L O O R GR O U N D F L O O R 2N D D W E L L I N G DN W D BE D 3 11 ' 2 " X 1 0 ' 4 " BA T H 5'3 " X 1 3 ' 0 " 30 ' - 2 " M. B E D 15 ' 4 " X 1 3 ' 6 " M. B A T H 14 ' 0 " X 1 3 ' 7 " BE D 2 10 ' 8 " X 1 1 ' 0 " L. M. C L . 10 ' 1 " X 6 ' 3 " LA U N D R Y 10 ' 1 " X 6 ' 0 " 42' - 0" 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N TW O S T O R Y - O P T I O N 2 MU L T I G E N E R A T I O N A L U N I T R DW UP UP 35 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " KI T C H E N 14 ' 1 1 " X 1 5 ' 4 " BA T H 5' 6 " X 9 ' 0 " FL E X RO O M 9'1 1 " X 1 1 ' 8 " DI N I N G 15 ' 4 " X 9 ' 4 " LI V I N G 18 ' 0 " X 1 7 ' 3 " LI V I N G 15 ' 0 " X 1 2 ' 0 " BE D 10 ' 0 " X 1 0 ' 5 " BA T H 5'2 " X 8 ' 0 " 20' - 0"64' - 0" 5' - 0 " 2- C A R GA R A G E 20 ' 5 " X 2 0 ' 3 " KI T . PO R C H 5' - 0 " 36 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 16' - 0" 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 GR O U N D F L O O R P L A N SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - T R A D I T I O N A L L O T SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 31 A1 2 W E S T C R E E K R UP DW UP W D DN 6' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 13' - 0"62' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"10 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 0 " FO Y E R 4'- 2 " X 5 ' 1 1 " PW D R 6' 1 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " 2 C A R GA R A G E 21 - ' 5 " X 2 0 - ' 5 " LI V I N G 16 ' - 5 " X 1 4 ' - 5 " 8' - 0 " 2' - 0 " DI N I N G 15 ' 7 " X 1 3 ' - 2 " KI T C H E N 13 ' 2 " X 1 2 ' 7 " 5' - 0 " P. GU E S T PA R K I N G AL L E Y 90' - 0" YA R D 10 ' 0 " X 2 6 ' 0 " T. T . PO R C H BE D 2 10 ' - 5 " X 9 ' 1 1 " BE D 3 10 ' - 8 " X 1 0 ' 2 " BA T H 6' - 8 " X 1 2 ' - 1 " LO F T 12 ' 5 " X 9 ' 8 " M. B A T H 8' - 5 " X 1 3 ' 2 " M. B E D 16 ' 5 " X 1 4 ' 5 " M. C L 6'- 8 " X 1 1 ' - 2 " LA U N D R Y 6' - 8 " X 8 ' 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 62' - 0" OP E N TO BE L O W L AR E A GR O U N D F L O O R 8 2 8 S F 2N D F L O O R 1 1 3 2 S F 19 5 9 S F 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 GR O U N D F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N PA R K W A Y L O T - 3 5 X 9 0 ’ EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 2 EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 1 SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - P A R K W A Y L O T 1 SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 32 A1 3 W E S T C R E E K EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 2 EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 1 R DW UP UP WD 15' - 0"62' - 0"13' - 0"6' - 1 0 " 23 ' - 2 " 5' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 35 ' - 0 " GU E S T PA R K I N G 2- C A R GA R A G E 20 ' 5 " X 2 0 ' 5 " PD R . 3' 3 " X 7 ' 9 " KI T C H E N 16 ' 6 " X 1 5 ' 0 " DI N I N G 16 ' 6 " X 1 0 ' 0 " LI V I N G 16 ' 6 " X 1 6 ' 0 " FO Y E R 5' 0 " X 7 ' 0 " P. YA R D 13 ' 0 " X 1 5 ' 0 " T.T. 90' - 0" BE D 3 10 ' 0 " X 1 0 ' 8 " BE D 2 10 ' 0 " X 1 1 ' 1 " BA T H 13 ' 4 " X 5 ' 2 " M. B A T H 6' 2 " X 2 0 ' 0 " M. C L . 7' 0 " X 9 ' 9 " M. B E D 15 ' 4 " X 1 4 ' 0 " L. L. LN D R . 6'4 " X 7 ' 6 " AR E A FI R S T L E V E L F L O O R 8 4 1 S F SE C O N D L E V E L F L O O R 1 0 1 2 S F 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 GR O U N D F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N PA R K W A Y L O T - 3 5 X 9 0 ’ SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - P A R K W A Y L O T 2 SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 33 A1 4 W E S T C R E E K EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 2 EL E V A T I O N - O P T I O N 1 UP R DW UP DN W D 22 ' - 0 " 62' - 0"13' - 0" 35 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 13' - 0" 15' - 0" GU E S T PA R K I N G KI T C H E N 14 ' 7 " " X 1 2 ' 8 " DI N I N G 14 ' 7 " X 1 1 ' 5 " LI V I N G 15 ' 0 " X 1 5 ' 5 " PD R . 5'0 " X 7 ' 3 " 2- C A R GA R A G E 20 ' 5 " X 2 0 ' 5 " P. YA R D 15 ' 0 " X 1 7 ' 6 " PO R C H T.T. BE D 2 10 ' 8 " x 1 0 ' 0 " BE D 3 10 ' 5 " x 1 1 ' 0 " BA T H 5' 2 " X 1 1 ' 0 " M. B E D 14 ' 7 " X 1 2 ' 8 ' M. B A T H 5' 2 " X 1 0 ' 1 0 " M. C L . 5'0 " X 7 ' 1 0 " L. LA U N D R Y 6'6 " X 6 ' 0 " AR E A GR O U N D F L O O R 7 9 7 S F SE C O N D F L O O R 8 5 4 S F 16 5 1 S F 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 GR O U N D F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N PA R K W A Y L O T - 3 5 X 9 0 ’ SI N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E - P A R K W A Y L O T 3 SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 34 A1 5 W E S T C R E E K VI E W D O W N G R A N D P A R K W A Y S SI N G L E - F A M I L Y N E I G H B O R H O O D ARC3 - 35 A1 6 W E S T C R E E K MU L T I F A M I L Y C L U B H O U S E SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” $5 ( $ & $ / & 8 / $ 7 , 2 1 6 &/ 8 % + 2 8 6 ( 6 ) 28 7 ' 2 2 5 6 ( 5 9 , & ( 6 ) $& 7 , 9 , 7 < 52 2 0 ; 67 %, . ( 6 + 2 3 ; +$ / / 05 ; :5 ; /( $ 6 , 1 * 2) ) , & ( ; ), 7 1 ( 6 6 ; 67 2 5 $ * ( 67 %,.( /2&.(56 &2))(( 28 7 ' 2 2 5 6( 5 9 , & ( [ (1 7 5 < )2 < ( 5 &/ 8 % + 2 8 6 ( ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 VI E W O F M A I N E N T R Y VI E W O F O U T D O O R P A T I O FL O O R P L A N ARC3 - 36 A1 7 W E S T C R E E K MU L T I F A M I L Y B U I L D I N G F L O O R P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 0 ” ARC3 - 37 A1 8 W E S T C R E E K MU L T I F A M I L Y P E R S P E C T I V E SC A L E : N T S VI E W F R O M P E D E S T R I A N W A L K W A Y ARC3 - 38 A1 9 W E S T C R E E K MU L T I F A M I L Y P E R S P E C T I V E SC A L E : N T S VI E W O F F R O M A U T O C O U R T ARC3 - 39 A2 0 W E S T C R E E K MU L T I F A M I L Y P E R S P E C T I V E SC A L E : N T S VI E W O F C O M M O N S T A I R S I L O T O W E R ARC3 - 40 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 • f: (805) 543-4609 www.rrmdesign.com a California corporation Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 Jeff Ferber, LA 2844 August 26, 2015 Doug Davidson, AICP, Deputy Director Community Development City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: West Creek Application for Focused Conceptual Architectural Review Dear Doug, On behalf of our client, Robins Reed Incorporated, RRM Design Group submits this application for a focused Conceptual Architectural Review of the West Creek residential project located in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Area. The project is designed as a single project spanning two OASP designated parcels, the Mid-State and Maddalena parcels. The combination of the two parcels into a single project allows for a more complete design solution which embraces site issues that otherwise would have created a less efficient solution. Last year, an application was submitted for conceptual architectural review. The ARC reviewed the project on December 1, 2014, where there was valuable input and a list of directional items were provided. Since that time, consultant staff has worked with the applicant to make some changes and further refinements to the site plan. A specialized package is now being submitted for a second conceptual ARC review as described below: 1)Conceptual ARC Review – Second review of the project by the ARC. The Commission requested an opportunity to receive an update on the project prior to the VTM going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. RRM has contacted Phil Dunsmore, the ARC liaison, to discuss strategy to keep the ARC discussion focused on a status update and changes made to the project to respond to prior ARC direction, rather than a wholesale discussion of the project design, which would occur with final review after the VTM is approved. In response to this focused strategy, a streamlined package tailored to the ARC’s directional items has been prepared. In addition, there will be a second review by the Parks & Recreation Commission. The package for that review will be submitted in the near future under separate cover and is described in the paragraph below: Attachment 3 ARC3 - 41 Doug Davidson, City of San Luis Obispo West Creek Application for Focused Conceptual Architectural Review August 26, 2015 Page 2 of 2 2)Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) Review - Second review of the project by the PRC. On March 4, 2015, the PRC provided initial feedback on the parks proposal for the site and the request to receive a parkland fee reduction. The PRC also anticipated that an updated plan would return to them for review prior to the VTM moving forward to hearings. Similar to the ARC package for a second round of review, a package will be assembled to address the prior comments of the PRC and include updated parkland statistics. The goal is that both the second rounds of ARC and PRC review will be scheduled prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the VTM, as requested by the respective advisory bodies. The follow-up letters summarizing their actions would then be forwarded to the Planning Commission. This strategy will reinforce that the project has received the specialized scrutiny for the respective purviews of the ARC and PRC and is generally moving in the right direction, consistent with the policy and guidance provided by the OASP and General Plan. Please feel free to contact us at (805) 543-1794 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Randy Russom, AIA Debbie Rudd, LEED AP Project Manager - Architecture Principal CA License No. C24410 cc: Aaryn Abbott, Robbins|Reed Attachments: Responses to ARC Directional Items Exhibit A, West Creek Project Parking Summary dli\\slofiles-sr\on-site\2014\1014050-West-Creek-Residential Subdivision\Planning\VTM submittal\ARC focused submittal\West Creek - Draft Submittal cover letter focused ARC.docx Attachment 3 ARC3 - 42 Responses to West Creek ARC Direction (12/1/14 meeting): 1.The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second conceptual review prior to the Planning Commission's review of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). Response: As requested, the project is returning to the ARC for a status update and focused review prior to the VTM going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. A streamlined package tailored to responses to the ARC’s directional items has been prepared. The focus of this meeting will be to discuss changes made to the project to respond to prior ARC direction. The more detailed analysis and discussion of the project would occur with final review after the VTM is approved. 2.Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading details such as cut and fill quantities, retaining, and topographic maps. Response: A full VTM package has been submitted to the City. Relevant information related to the requested grading details is part of the streamlined ARC package. A link to the VTM and associated documents will posted on the City’s website for the Commission’s reference if desired. Since the original site and grading plans were drafted, there have been numerous improvements to the overall grading proposal to limit the extent of needed earth movement and to limit the height and extent of retaining walls; these include: a.Site grading where cut and fill are essentially balanced, assuming 10-15% shrinkage during the compaction process. This is an obvious aesthetic benefit, consistent with City policies, and limits disruption to adjacent properties from construction traffic by limiting the need for import and export of materials. b.Many retaining walls along the riparian corridor have been eliminated. Only one retaining wall is proposed over 6 feet in height which is located internal to the site with limited visibility. Details on how this will be finished and screened will return with plans for final ARC review. c.Plans show a tiered set of retaining walls in the western section of the site in the open space area west of A Street. There is 5 feet of spacing between the two walls that will allow for landscaping to provide a softer appearance. Attachment 3 ARC3 - 43 West Creek Responses to ARC Direction August 26, 2015 Page 2 of 4 3.Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditional single- family homes and multi-family units across the creek, and showing pedestrian connections between the multi-family buildings. Response: Sheet Aof plans shows pedestrian linkages across the site and to adjacent properties. The goal of the design is to make the development pedestrian-friendly and connect to adjacent sites. The project includes a pedestrian pathway on the south side of the creek, beyond the single-family traditional lots, in the common open space area to link to A Street. This path links to the pathway in the open space area between the parkway homes to the south and allows for access to park areas and Orcutt Road beyond. Grade changes and ADA requirements limit the applicant from including a bridge across the creek to provide a direct link between the single-family areas and the R-4 component. 4.Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. Response: Sheet A1 of plans shows the location of the most likely street and pedestrian linkages. Applicant has met with owners of adjacent mobile home park to discuss pedestrian and utility access between sites. 5.Clarify parking proposals throughout the project. Response: Sheets A5 and A7 of plans is a parking plan which details for all of the project components how parking consistent with City ordinance standards is provided. This plan demonstrates that the single-family “parkway” lots (alley loaded) and single- family traditional lots fully comply with City parking requirements. The parking for the multifamily portion of the project is a little more complex calculation given the variety of unit sizes and target market. Exhibit A provides a detailed discussion of the calculations and a rationale to support an automobile trip reduction exception to parking standards at this location. 6.With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). Response: This item would return to the ARC for final review. Sheet A7 of plans, the parking plan, shows locations of on-street parking. Attachment 3 ARC3 - 44 West Creek Responses to ARC Direction August 26, 2015 Page 3 of 4 7.Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. Response: A digital model of the project has not been prepared. If requested by the ARC, perspective views of project components or expanded sections could be prepared for final ARC review of the project design. 8.Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single-family products. Response: Sheet A11 of plans includes a third elevation type for traditional lot single family residences. The “Neo-Craftsman” style was selected to have a style specifically called out in the OASP. The elevation has elements of the traditional style, but also has a contemporary edge to coordinate with other project building styles. 9.Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing the street with the traditional single -family products such as rear garages, side-loaded garages and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem parking may be supported to minimize the width of driveways. Response: The R-2 component of the project has two distinct unit types, the traditional units (23) and the parkway units (44). The traditional units have individual driveways with access to the public street and street-facing garages. The parkway units have internal alley access to individual garages and no direct access to the public street. The distribution of unit types, with the fewer traditional units wrapping around the cluster of the parkway units, was intentionally done to minimize the overall number of units with garages facing the street. In accordance with the OASP, the R-2 project design attempts to maximize density while still providing compact and livable homes on smaller lots. Without the internal alley access for the parkway units, the design could potentially have had lots on the south and west sides of the public street that also had garages along the street. Therefore, the proposed design with twice as many R-2 units using alley access inherently minimizes garage doors facing the streets with 66% of the units have no garages facing the street. Attachment 3 ARC3 - 45 West Creek Responses to ARC Direction August 26, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Other features of the project design for the traditional units that minimize the aesthetic impacts of individual garages facing the street are: a.Staggered setbacks – The garage doors have varied setbacks and are not all in alignment. b.Garage door locations – The doors are stepped back from the main façade allowing the front porches be the prominent feature along the street view. c.Detailing – Garage doors will include small divided upper windows for light and as accents, and natural garage door recesses will be treated with lintels, trellises and surrounds. d.Driveway paving – Pavers and non-traditional paving options are being considered. Attachment 3 ARC3 - 46 Exhibit A - West Creek Project Parking Sheet A5 of plans is a parking plan which details for all of the project components how parking meets City ordinance standards. This plan demonstrates that the single-family “parkway” lots (alley loaded) and single-family traditional lots fully comply with City parking requirements. The parking for the multifamily portion of the project is a little more complex given the variety of unit sizes and target market. The units will be for-sale, air-space condominiums, rather than a completely rental complex. A calculation of required parking and a parking summary for this project component are shown in the tables below. Table 1. Required Parking Seven Buildings each containing Parking Calculation (per building) Spaces Required Nine two-bedroom units 9 x 2.0 18.0 x 7 = 126.0 One one-bedroom unit 1 x 1.5 1.5 x 7 = 10.5 Five studios 5 x 1.0 5.0 x 7 = 35.0 Guest parking - residential 15/5 units = 3.0 3.0 x 7 = 21.0 TOTAL – 105 units 192.5 Table 2. Parking Summary Summary Features Parking Numbers Required parking 193 Bike Parking Reduction (10% max – one care space/5 add’l. bike spaces) - 19 Net Requirement 174 required; 160 provided Remaining shortfall (174- 160 = 14) 14 – trip reduction request Attachment 3 ARC3 - 47 West Creek Parking Summary Page 2 of 3 The applicant is proposing to utilize the bicycle parking reduction allowed for in Section 17.58.070 G. of the Zoning Regulations to further reduce the number of car spaces in the project. This section allows projects which provide more bicycle spaces than required to reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces, up to a ten percent reduction, subject to the approval of the community development director. The applicant’s proposal is to utilize the full 10% reduction by providing 95 additional bicycle spaces in the project beyond the base code requirements. Per Zoning Regulations Section 17.58.070, “if an administrative use permit for site development exceptions and/or requests for shared and mixed use parking reductions, and review by the Architectural Review Commission are required, then only the architectural review application need be filed.” In this case, the applicant is requesting a parking reduction under Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 E., Auto Trip Reduction, which states. Automobile trip reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life. The applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction, including innovative project design, transportation demand management (tdm), or incentives, which will reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the site. These may include, but are not limited to programs such as car-sharing, employer-paid transit passes, cashouts (i.e. trip reduction incentive plans), or off-peak work hours. Rationale for Support of Parking Reduction The applicant is committed to developing a project that has sustainable features and is not auto- centric. An upcoming step will be to follow through and submit a trip reduction plan that makes a formal commitment to providing features and amenities in the project to encourage residents to seek alternatives to single passenger trips. The applicant sees the target market for this project as primarily millennials, and secondarily older households looking to downsize. This target market tends to have fewer cars resulting in less demand for onsite parking. In addition, millennials in particular conduct more business virtually resulting in lower trip generation rates from the site than residents of past decades would have made. The following is a list of factors that would warrant support for a parking reduction for this project component at this location: 1.Bike Friendly Design: The project includes the mandated two bicycle parking spaces per residential unit by having longer garage spaces that accommodate the required spaces Attachment 3 ARC3 - 48 West Creek Parking Summary Page 3 of 3 or by interior spaces in those units without garages. As mentioned in the discussion of parking requirements, the project will provide many more bicycle spaces than the base requirement that the code mandates. In addition, there will be a bicycle care center in the community building that will support and service bicycles. 2.Proximity to Bike Trail: The site is in close proximity to the Railroad Safety Trail. The project location is an incentive to residents to opt for bicycling given the convenience, and even time savings, that taking a bike to go downtown would be during lunch and commute hours where auto travel can be slow. 3.Healthy Lifestyle: Many of those people in the target market that will likely be attracted to purchasing a unit in the project are committed to staying healthy and fit. One way to realize that fitness goal is to combine commuting or needed errands with riding a bike or walking. The bike trail’s proximity and other bike facilities in the project makes this more of a reality. 4.Nearby Major Employers: Within a short distance of the project are several major large employers. These businesses include Rosetta, Mind-Body, SESLOC, and others in surrounding business parks and retail centers. This circumstance encourages residents to pursue alternative transportation options. 5.Location on City Bus Route: The project will be located on a City bus route which provides residents with another alternative transportation option. 6.Rideshare Vehicles: The applicant plans to have a contract with Rideshare to provide service to the site as demand is determined. This commitment would be included in the project’s trip reduction plan. 7.FunRide: The applicant is also looking into the possibility of how this service might be worked into the project’s trip reduction program. Attachment 3 ARC3 - 49 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org Attachment 4 December 8, 2014 Robbins Reed, Inc. 1308 Monterey Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARCH-0224-2014: 1299 Orcutt Road Conceptual review of the home building designs of the West Creek Project in the Orcutt Specific Plan area Gentlemen: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December 1, 2014, continued action on your project to a date uncertain with the following directional items: 1. The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second conceptual review prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). 2. Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading details such as cut and fill quantities, retaining, and topographic maps. 3. Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditional single-family homes and multi-family units across the creek and showing pedestrian connections between the multi-family buildings. 4. Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. 5. Clarify parking proposals throughout the project. 6. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 7. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 8. Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single-family products. ARC3 - 50 ARCH-0224-2014 (1299 Orcutt Road) Page 2 9. Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing the street with the traditional single-family products such as rear garages, side-loaded garages and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem parking may be supported to minimize the width of driveways. If you have questions, please contact Doug Davidson at (805) 781-7177. Sincerely, Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor’s Office RRM Design Group 3765 S. Higuera Street, #102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ARC3 - 51 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Introduction to the “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan PROJECT ADDRESS:1299 Orcutt Road BY:Jaime Hill, Contract Planner E-mail: jhill@pmcworld.com FILE NUMBER:ARC-C 224-14 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION:Continue the project to a date uncertainand provide preliminary comments to the applicant and staff regarding the overall project design. SITE DATA Applicant Robbins|Reed Representative Randy Russom, RRM Design Group Zoning R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential, Specific Plan) & R-4-SP (High Density Residential, Specific Plan) General Plan Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Site Area 18.41 acres Environmental Status An initial study of environmental impact will be prepared when the application is deemed complete SUMMARY The applicant is proposingto develop an 18-acre site at the northern edge ofthe Orcutt Area Specific Plan with a residential development that provides for a variety of housing types and neighborhood amenities. A total of 165residential units are proposed including 23 traditional single-family detached homes, 44 single-family parkway homes, and 98 multi-family apartment units. At this time the applicant has submitted only an application for Conceptual Architectural Review, but anticipates submitting applications for Tentative Map, Architectural Review, and Environmental Review shortly.This is the thirddevelopment proposal to move forward through the City review process since the Orcutt Area was annexed to the City on November 16, 2011, and is immediately northwest of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) for the Taylor-Wingate project that was approved by City Council on October 1, 2013. The purpose of scheduling the project before the ARC now is to allow the applicant to make a presentation on the current project submittal. This meeting is intended to introduce the ARC to the project early in the process and for the ARC to provide some preliminary feedback to the Meeting Date:December 1, 2014 Item Number:1 ARC3 - 52 applicant and staff. The project will be returning to the ARC for a more formal review once the VTM has received approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. At that future hearing, staff will prepare a specific analysis of project-related issues, including aesthetics and visual impacts, for the ARC to review and discuss. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The project is the building designs and site amenities for anew residential subdivision. The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Chapter 4of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).Relevant excerpts from the OASP areattached to the staff report (Attachment 4). 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The project site consists of about 18.5acres, spanning two OASP designated parcels, the Mid- State and Maddalena parcels. The combination of the two parcels into a single project allows for a more complete design solution and efficient development pattern. There are several unique constraints that must be confronted with development of the site, including 52feet in grade change,two forks of Orcutt Creek which pass through the site, aPG&E easement along the entire southern property line, and OASPrequirements to provide vehicle access to future neighboring developments to both the east and south. Immediately to the east of the site are two R-2-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the southeastof the site is the Taylor-Wingate development, which is also within the OASP and zoned R-2-SP and R-3-SP. Properties to the north are zoned R-3 and R-1and are developed with an assisted living facility and single family homes. Properties immediately to the west are zoned R-2 and are developed with mobile homes. 2.2Project Description The West Creek site will serve as the northern gateway to the rest of the OASP to the south, and has been designed to incorporate attractive open spaces while accommodating the density anticipated by the OASP. These open spaces will connect the OASP neighborhoods to the existing communities and provide both passive and active recreational opportunities for those in the area through planned enhancements and appropriate setbacks. Trails meandering through these open spaces provide for non-motorized, inter-neighborhood circulation, while promoting the active, outdoor recreational opportunities encouraged by the OASP. The project proposes arange of multi-generational housing sizes and styles withinthreegeneral housing product types, including traditional detachedsingle-family homes, small-lot single- ARC3 - 53 family parkway homes,and apartments ranging from studio units to three bedrooms.Consistent with the OASP land use designations, areas generally north of the East Fork of Orcutt Creek are developed with multi-family units at densitiesanticipated in the R-4 zone. Areas south of the creek are developed with small-lot single-family homes, appropriate for their R-2 designation. Within the single-family portion of the project lot sizes range from 1,400 square feetto 1,600 square feet, with a variety of home options and styles provided for first-time homebuyers and move-down buyers. Master bedrooms on the first floor allow for move-down homeowners whilethe alley-loaded parkway homesoffer opportunities to those just entering the housing market. To facilitate neighborhood interaction and provide for communal play areas for children, grand parkways have been incorporated in between portions of the single-family parkway lots with front porches fronting onto and engaging with these spaces. The single-family traditional lots would serve multi-generational living through flexible floor plan layouts, including optional attached secondary dwelling units. In addition to outdoor amenities within the single family portion of the site, a number of high quality amenities are associated directly with the multi-family apartments, providing these occupants the opportunity toengage with neighbors and enjoy the indoor/outdoor lifestyle encouraged in the OASPas well.The proposed mix of amenitieswill provide a rental type not commonly provided in San Luis Obispo, serving a young workforce not ready to enter into the home ownership market. In addition to the residential units, the project includes significant park and open space areas, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the OASP. Significant park and open spaces areas including approximately 6.6-acres along the western extent of the site and Orcutt Creek as it crosses the site from east to westachieves multi-purpose/multi use functions. These areas will provide for biological enhancement and drainage mitigation, play/turf area, open space, seating areas, and opportunities for a community garden and dog off-leash area, thereby providing both active and passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision and the overall community as a whole. Theseareaswould also be directly accessible to the existing mobile home park residents to the west and homes to the north, which are currently considered underserved by parks. In addition to these community park and open space areas,an additional 1.1 acres of the site are dedicated to neighborhood commons and parkways among the units. 2.3 Specific Plan Background On March 2, 2010 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the OASP.This action by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the City’s General Plan, and rezoning the subject sites to R-2-SP and R-4-SP (Medium-Density & High- Density Residential with the Specific Plan Overlay). On November 16, 2011 the OASP area was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo. The OASP Final EIR contained numerous mitigation measures which are required be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental ARC3 - 54 assessment prepared for this site-specific project.The initial study of environmental impact for the proposed project will bepreparedonce all entitlement requests have been submitted. The overall goals of the Specific Plan are to: x Develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City’s housing needs; x Provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers with a variety of income-levels, including affordable housing for residents with low and very- low income levels; x Protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek/wetland habitats, and visual resources in open space areas; x Provide a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the Orcutt Area; x Phase the proposed development so that public facilities are developed concurrently with each new phase in a rational and cost effective fashion; x Encourage the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by incorporating bicycle/pedestrian paths and lanes along the roads and through the parks and open space areas; x Protect the new residents from railroad noise by including a buffer between the railroad and the new residential areas. The buffer area will include a regional detention system consisting of floodable terraces and will provide recreational opportunities with a landscaped bicycle/pedestrian path system; and to Identify a visual and noise setback for new residents on Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road by incorporating a landscape buffer with a pedestrian path along these road frontages. x Provide goals and identify mitigation and related Environmental Impact Studies. Some of the tenets of the OASP are to: integrate with existing surrounding development in terms of use and scale, provide open space, protect sensitive natural resources, create a pedestrian friendly environment, and provide a new source of housing affordable and diversified housing within the City of San Luis Obispo. As mentioned earlier, the OASP set many of the land use and development parameters for future development and the tract maps set the infrastructure, circulation, and lotting patterns. The ARC also has a role in creating this new neighborhood by reviewing and ultimately approving architectural prototypes for the development and components of site developmentincluding site plans, floor plans, and landscaping proposals. 3.0 PROJECT DISCUSSION The ARC will not be taking any formal action on the project at tonight’s meeting. The principal purpose of the meeting is for the ARC to become familiar with the project plans early in the process and ask staff and the applicant questions about the project and process. ARC members should be prepared to provide preliminary comments to the applicant and staff on overall site planning and conceptual building designs. These preliminary comments will provide early direction to the applicant for them to consider as they continue to refine their project design. ARC3 - 55 The following paragraphs highlight a few key elements of the site and building design of the project that the ARC should discuss and provide direction to staff and the applicant. 3.1 Site Plan: As the northern gateway tothe OASP, the provision of streetaccess and utilities was carefully thought out and planned for. The proposed alignment of “A” Street has been shifted westward to accommodate a more cohesive neighborhood layout, with smaller residential streets serving the individual homes. “A” Street would be bordered by the front entries of both the multi-family units and single-family parkway homes along the east, and the length of the linear park along its entire western side as it passes through the site. As previously mentioned, the subject site has 52 feet of grade change, with an average cross slope of approximately 9.5% downward toward the western extent of the site.Although grading plans are still being developed, preliminary site sections depict agrading concept that has been designed to follow the natural southwestern descending contours of the land toachieve maximum solar and view access for individual lots. At grade access is provided to adjoining properties. To minimize the amount of grading and need for retaining walls,the parkways that provide pedestrian access to the single-family homes at the center of the sitehave a split-level designwhich could not be accommodated with a more traditional street layout. Within the multi- family portion of the site adjacent to Orcutt Road, retaining walls would be used for the dual purpose of making up grade change and screening parking. 3.2Site Circulation The project site currently has access to Orcutt Road. Asthe northernmost project within the OASP, thefuture network of inner tract roadways and connection points to adjacent properties hasbeen considered(see Attachment 3 –OASP Circulation Plan). “A” Street will provide access from Orcutt Road southward through the site to the other OASP developments. Direct vehicle and pedestrian connections to the Taylor-Wingate development are included along the project’s southern property line. Pedestrian connections would occur at pass-throughs reserved by Taylor-Wingate, and a vehicle connection at the southeast corner of the siteto Monte Azure Road. As required by the OASP, this project will also provide access to the parcels immediately east when they redevelop.1 This connection will occur at the southeast corner of the site, where a small dog park is currently depicted as an interim amenity until such connections are needed. Inner tract roadways are designed to provide efficient access within the subdivision while considering the natural contours of the land, solar access, safety, speed reduction, maximization of views within the subdivision as well as future inner-tract connections. 1 OASP DS-4. Inter neighborhood connectivity: Project site designs shall incorporate road, pedestrian and bicycle connections into the adjacent neighborhoods and provide future connection points to development in future phases. ARC3 - 56 3.3Building Design: Chapter 4 of the OASPprovides guidance regarding desired design outcomes withnew development within the area. The guiding goal, policy, and program related to project architectural design iscited below: x Goal 4.1: New development in the Orcutt Area that is well designed, internally compatible and enhances San Luis Obispo’s unique sense of place. x Policy 4.1.1: Encourage a compatible mix of residence designs. x Program 4.1.1a: The architectural styles of Craftsman, California Bungalow, and California Mission architectural themes are strongly encouraged in the Orcutt Area… As noted above, the OASP encourages a compatible mix of residential design and encourages Craftsman, California Bungalow and California Mission themes as a means to provide compatible development in keeping with San Luis Obispo’s unique sense of place. The proposed architectural character of the West Creek project is envisioned as a contemporary interpretation of these quintessential San Luis Obispo styles, with the more modern design appeal favored by the young professionals that have been added to the workforce with recent nearby commercial developments. Home designs are grounded by the inclusion of traditional San Luis Obispo home features, including inviting entries and front porches, and the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The architecture takes on a more modern feel with the incorporation of vertical elements, pop-outs, and shed roofs. The homes also include sustainable features such as windows that maximizenatural daytime light while still maintaining privacy, and floor plans that provide for cross-ventilation and an indoor/outdoor lifestyle. The applicant’s goal is to provide a distinctive neighborhood of varied, but complementary architectural styles that express quality and visual interest, rather than a specifically themed architectural style for the entire development that is common in many subdivisions. Although not the classic design styles encouraged in the OASP, the proposed architecture does employ many of the design strategies recommended in the guidelines, including use of multiple façade elements, roof variation and overhangs, and a varied palette of colors and materials.2 Changes in roof orientation, window configuration, and porch design are also employed to add additional 2 OASP DS-3.7. Façade Elements:It is desirable to create multiple elements in the façade of two story structures to reduce the visual mass. The residential design should break the structure into three to four elements such as entry, main structure, single story element and the roof. Two story gabled bays and roof formers can also add variety. OASP DS-3.8. Roof Overhangs: A variety of hips and gables should be used, particularly on the front/street façade to further break up the mass of the structure. Roofs extended over windows for shading and associated brackets are encouraged. ARC3 - 57 variation to the home designs. Thismore contemporary architectural style with less building ornamentation waspopular in 1950s and 1960s and has experienced resurgence in popularity in recent times. In addition to the neighborhoods with distinctive traditional architecture such as Old Town and Mill Street, there are numerous San Luis Obispo neighborhoods that feature examples of the more spare mid- century modern architectural styles. These neighborhoods include, Monterey Heights, Ferrini Heights, Skinner’s Laguna Lake California Modern homes, Stoneridge, Royal Way, Johnson Highlands (Flora Street) and the flat roofs on and surrounding Augusta Street. These areas provide examples of distinctive individual and tract architectural statements which provide both internal neighborhood cohesion as well as integration with surrounding development. A similar design approach has been proposed for the adjacent Taylor-Wingate project. That project, which will be returning to the ARC at a future date for final design approval, also sought to create a hybrid blending traditional features with a more contemporary, spare approach. Together, the two projects would be internally compatible, and offer a more modern approach to traditional San Luis Obispo. Provided below is a brief overview of each of the residential components of the subject project. Traditional Single Family Homes 23 one- and two-story, traditional single-family homes are proposed in the northeastern portion of the project, south of Orcutt Creek. The homes range in size from approximately 1,830square feet to 2,012square feet,and employ flexible floor plans with ground level master bedrooms and options for attached secondary dwelling units. There are currently two traditional home designs, one single-story and one two-story, each with two optional elevations (Attachment 2, project plans pages A4-A7).The home styles derive their architectural style from the California Bungalow and California Modern movements of which influences of mid-century modern and international styles are present. While two-car garages are front-loaded, the predominance of the garages on the street are offset by varied building setbacks and wall planes, different material selections, window articulation, roof overhangs and prominent Figure 1. Examples of Traditional Lot Single-Family Home Architecture ARC3 - 58 covered front entries.The applicant’s goal is to create buildings that do not mimic or utilize “plant on” elements to establish an architectural theme. The architecture is influenced by proven historic styles, yet incorporates modern design principles, practices, materials and technologies. Parkway Single Family Homes The 44 parkway homes are envisioned to provide individualized homes at a higher density, while emphasizing pedestrian connections and neighborhood interactions. The homes include two-car, alley-loaded garagesand floor plans with 1,670-1,980 square feet. The parkway homes are thematicallysimilar to the traditional lot single family homes, with coveredentries,a rich palette of materials and colors, and varied roof forms, but with increased verticality due to the narrow lot widths. Private outdoor space with each unit is provided in a small courtyard accessed from the primary living area, as well as a small front yard. There are currently three parkway home designs, each with two optional elevations (Attachment 2, project plans pages A8-A10). These units are distinguished by their small lots and orientation towards pedestrian walkways. With ally-loaded attached garages, the front entry of each parkway home opens directly to private small landscaped yards and sidewalks.3 Many of these homes also front one of two “grand parkways” which provide unique areas for neighborhood interaction and communal play areas. These grand parkways are imagined as neighborhood serving amenities with picnic tables and benches, barbecue areas, playgrounds, and lawn areas for formal and informal interactions. In addition to providing engaging communal outdoor spaces, these parkwaysrespond to the physical site terrain, with a split-level design that absorbs much of the grade change inthis area of the site(Attachment 2, project plans page A11 and A2 site sections). 3 OASP Program 4.1.2b: Design features such as front porches, front yards along streets and entryways facing public walkways, should also be incorporated into residential design to strengthen neighborhood atmosphere. Figure 2. Examples of Parkway Single-FamilyHome Architecture ARC3 - 59 Guest Parking Both the single-family and parkway houses include two-car garages. In addition to on-street parking adjacent to the traditional single family homes, a total of 48 guest parking spaces are provided on the south side of the project. This parking is located closest to the parkway houses, but may also be used by visitors to the single-family houses. The number of spaces at 48 would exceed typical guest space requirements (assuming 67 units total and one guest space for each 5 units; the requirement would be 13 spaces). However, the distribution of the guest parking spaces through the development may warrant some refinement. Multi-family Units The multi-family portion of the project at the north entry to the site contains 98 units spread through seven separate buildings. Each of the three-story multi-family buildings contains a combination of studio (5), two-bedroom (8), and three-bedroom (1) units, and nine enclosed parking garages.The remainder of required parking would be provided with a mix of uncovered stalls and carports. Ground floor studio units would have individual front porch entries, while the remaining units would take access from an interior corridor located on the second level. All of the two- and three-bedroom rental units would be townhome style with living spaces on two levels. In this project, the main living areas and balconies on the units are on the second level,and bedrooms on the third floor.Similar to the single-family product elsewhere in the project, the architectural design is a blend of traditional details with contemporary massing and windows. The traditional detailsin the multi-family product are derived from the Craftsman style,withlarge roof overhangs exposed rafter tails, contrasting bulkheads,and the use of natural building materials.Building heights comply with the 35-foot height maximum for the High- Density Residential (R-4) Zone (Attachment 2, project plans page A13-A15). Figure 3. Rendering of Parkway Design and Amenities ARC3 - 60 Amenities associated with the multi-family apartments include a community clubhouse and pool, mountain bike washing stations, bocce ball courts, and picnic and barbecue areas. These facilities are sited near the center of the multi-family apartments, adjacent to the creek corridor, where they can take advantage of the natural setting. By providing these common amenities adjacent to the creek corridor it is assured that all apartment residents have access to this desirable natural feature. The approximately 1,160 square-footclubhouse space will be available for residents of the multifamily units to congregate and will provide a controlled point of entry for the pool and patio area. Figure 4. Select Multi-family Elevations Figure 5. Clubhouse Front and Patio Entries ARC3 - 61 4.0SUMMARY The applicant submitted a Pre-Application to get early feedback from the various City departments and the attached project plans for Conceptual Architectural Review.Therefore, this is the first public hearing to review the project. The applicant and staff are continuing to work together to further refine the project design including the proposed street network and infrastructure to insure its compliance with OASP guidance and other City standards. It is anticipated that the applicant will be submitting for the remaining entitlements, includingthe VTM, Architectural Review, and Environmental Review in the near future The project application is consistent with the stated goals in the OASP and provides a new neighborhood with many admirable components and features, including, but not limited to: 1.A range of different housing typesand tenures to appeal to households of varied income levels and needs. 2.Quality construction and architecture of the current time and place. 3.A new sustainable neighborhood with internal pedestrian connections and provision for future linkages to adjoining sites. 4.Community amenities including a park, trail connections, and activated common spaces. 5.Balanced site grading that respects the existing site topography. 6.Providing a gateway forthe overall area as envisioned by the OASP. 5.0 DISCUSSIONOUTLINE 1.Site Plan – ARC feedback on overall site plan. a.Are there any opportunities for additional pedestrian linkages through the center of the project? b.Should some of the multi-family surface parking be covered? c.With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on- street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 2.Building Design – ARC reaction to conceptual elevations provided. a.Are the more modern, flat and shed roof architectural styles in keeping with the tenets of the OASP and appropriate with the site context? b.Identify details and features that will require clarification with final architectural review. c.Are additional model types or façade options necessary for the single-family products to add variety and potentially reduce the number of standard driveway approaches? 3.Site Features a.Park amenities b.Solar access plan 6.0RECOMMENDATION ARC3 - 62 Continue the project to a date uncertainwith the following directional items: 1.Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City checklists. 2.Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage (s) [describe where]. 3.Work with the adjacent property ownersregarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. 4.With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 5.Provide some covered parking for the multi-family units as shown on Sheet L1. 6.Recommend that a digital model of the project be provided to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 7.Consider additional model types or façade options necessary for the single-family products to add variety and potentially reduce the number of standard driveway approaches. 7.0ATTACHMENTS 1.Vicinity map 2.Project Plans 3.OASP Circulation Plan 4.OASP Chapter 4excerpts Included in ARC portfolios: 11” x 17” colored project plans ARC3 - 63 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present:Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey- Good Absent:CommissionerAllen Root Staff:Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Contract Planner Jaime Hilland Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. The vote to continue public hearing #3, 1911 Johnson Avenue, ARCH-0240-2014 was taken before public hearings #1 and #2. MINUTES: The minutes of November 17, 2014, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.1299 Orcutt Road.ARCH-0224-2014; Conceptual review of the home building designs of the West Creek Project in the Orcutt Specific Plan area; C/OS-SP/R- 2/R-4-SP zones; Robbins Reed, Inc., applicant. (Jaime Hill) Contract Planner Hill presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the project to a date uncertain and the provision of preliminary comments to the applicant and staff regarding the overall project design. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Braff of Robins:Reed introduced the project team and their vision for the site. Debbie Rudd, of RRMDesign explained the design process the applicant had gone through, and their desire to get input from the ARC at this stage of project development. Scott Martin, project architect with RRM Design, explained the constraints of the site and walked the commissioners through the project layout and architectural details. ARC3 - 64 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wynn stated that he does not want the applicant to assume he is giving final approval to the site plan at this hearing because the applicant needs to provide more information on the details of the plan. He noted that he is happy with the realignment of “A” Street and stated that the linkages seem appropriate. He raised the question of whether some of the multi-family parking should be covered carports, perhaps withsolar panels like those in place at local school parking lots. Commr. Curtis stated that it is premature to comment on the site planning since the Commission does not have detailed information and he is reluctant to give consent to the site plan only tohave a tentative map come back to the Commission with no opportunity for changes. He added that he would like to have the chance to review the map before it goes to the Planning Commission. He stated that another concern is that thecommunity room appears to be hidden behind two of the multi-family unit buildings and does not occupy as prominent a location as it should. He added that he is unclear if it serves all the housing or only the multi-family units. He stated that there should be more covered parking for the multi-family units. He noted that “balanced site grading” does not make it clear whether there is export or import of materials. He stated that it is important to have Public Works approve the access road and the intersection. Commr. Andreen stated that the placement of “A” Street makes sense. She added that the project is going in the right direction but the Commission needs to see more information about connections and details. Commr. Ehdaie stated she likes the site plan but needs more information about access between the multi-family units and the single family homes on the other side of the creek. She added that she does not see paths between the buildings for the multi- family units. Commr. Wynn stated that Commr. Ehdaie was referring to the need for safe pedestrian pathways from building to building in the multi-family section. Commr. Nemcik stated that the grading on the north side is fine and there is no need for covered parking there. She added that she would rather see solar panels on the roofs of the buildings. Commr. McCovey Good stated that the project is going in a good direction and she likes the street realignment, the parkways, andthe pedestrian access through the site. She supported covered parking at least along Orcutt Road. Commr. Wynn stated that he wanted to encourage access between the adjacent development projects including pedestrian paths, and supportedthe direction of the building design. He added that the elevations look like something new to this area that fits the targeted demographic even though they are not Craftsman, California Bungalow, or California Mission. He noted that while the materials are not yet known, the project is ARC3 - 65 moving in a strong direction that feels cohesive and workable and maintains cost effectiveness for the target market. He strongly suggested that there be a third design option for the larger single family homes because it will make a huge difference in the street elevation. Commr. Andreen stated she would feel more comfortable if there was one design for the Traditional homes that looked like a simplified bungalow to show some fidelity to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. She added that the different designs could be tied together with materials and colors. She noted that doing this would save trouble in the long run. Commr. Wynn stated that doing that might water down the project and he prefers to stay with the style presented. Commr. Curtis pointed out, in reference to the recent chastisement of the Commission for the appearance of not adhering to guidelines, that the OASP “strongly encourages” the use of Craftsman, California Bungalow, and California Mission styles in order not to put a straitjacket on creativity. He added that he feels somewhat uncomfortable moving toa shed-roof modern design because the OASP does not specify that style. He stated it is somewhat difficult to pull off a shed-roof design, especially at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and he worries that it will not be durable enough to be desirable in 5-10 years. He noted that he could see a modern design that respects the three styles referenced in the OASP but the shed roofs are a little problematical. He also noted that there are fairly strong policies in the OASP and in the City guidelines about not having a long row of garages which is what is presented here with the single family homes. He suggested that some of the homes have side entry garages. Commr. Wynn suggested requiring that some of the garages be tandem parking. Commr.Curtis added that shared driveways would be a way to reduce overall pavement which, along with changing the row of garages, would make this less of a suburban type development. Commr. Ehdaie stated she supports the modern contemporary design as long as durable materials are used and, in the next review, she wants to see a color board. Commr. Nemcik supported the style but agreed with Commr. Curtis on the driveways and garages. She complimented the parkway elevations that do not have garages in the frontand stated that she appreciates that this property is like a puzzle. Commr. McCovey-Good stated she also likes the modern architectural style as long as high quality materials are used, even though it is not expressly in keeping with the OASP. She added that when the project comes back for a second review, she wants to see all four sides of the structures. She agreed with the need to minimize the front- loaded garages. ARC3 - 66 Commr. Wynn asked if staff knows what proportion of the required number of units in the Orcutt Area will be in this development. He expressed concern about the lack of variety in designs included in the OASP. Contract Planner Hill noted that, in addition to highlighting the three specific styles, the OASP talks about detailsand features, many of which are incorporated in this project. Commr. Andreen again emphasized the need for a third more traditional style that adheres to the OASP. Commr. Curtis stated that although he appreciates the articulation in the present design, it may be too much articulation and would benefit from some simplification. He noted the need for a balance between articulation and sameness. Commr. Wynn stated that the Commission does not have enough information on amenities and solar access so discussion should be deferred to the next review. Commr. McCovey-Good stated that the Commission should address the location of the dog park and the blocking of the road that services the larger single family homes. Commr. Wynn stated that, without benefit oftopography and more information, he is still a little unclear on this and on the connectivity between this and the adjacent projects. Commr. McCovey-Good supported the cul-de-sac if it dead-ends into a park. Commr. Ehdaie asked for the staff recommendation about this. Contract Planner Hill stated that there is a required connection up to the next property where about nine units may be built and the future access may be a private road, but that the road by the single-family homes is not required to be a connecting road to Azure Street in the other adjacent development. She noted that the applicant prefers to blocktraffic on this road, but staff generally advocates for roads with through-circulation. Senior Planner Ricci suggested asking for more information about adjacent properties, “A” Street, circulation, the tentative map, lot design and grading, at the next review. Commr. McCovey-Good stated that this information would be needed before the Commission could provide feedback for these site features. Commr. Curtis stated he prefers connectivity between streets rather than cul-de-sacs. Commr. Wynn noted that, at a minimum, there should be pedestrian access where the cul-de-sac ends. Commr. McCovey-Good summarized the recommendations of the Commission, as mentioned above, including providing a site plan with topography, retaining walls, parks, and realignment of the road. She noted there was a split in support of the covered ARC3 - 67 parking so it is not a requirement and item 5 on the list can be deleted. She added that the pedestrian linkages looked maximized. Commr. Wynn wondered if there could be a pedestrian bridge through the single-family units, possibly between houses 10 and 11thatwould provide a path between the single and multifamily sections. Commr. Ehdaie agreed with Commr. Wynn about the need for this pathway. Commr. McCovey-Good continued her summary of recommendations. She noted the need for a third elevation option for the Traditional single family residences and the need to restrict, as much as possible, the front-loading garages. She stated that she has trouble with limiting her thoughts based on the Commission being given a lashing on one project. Commr. Ehdaie stated the Commissioners represent the community so it is okay to make comments about the design. She noted that the OASP says “strongly encouraged” so it is not being explicit which makes a modern contemporary design acceptable. Commr. McCovey-Good added that the Commission is a pretty well-versed group and the Commissioners should not second-guess themselves. Contract Planner Hill suggested that it is helpful for those not present if the Commission articulates the rationale for its recommendations. Commr. Curtis stated the job of the Commission is to apply the OASPand the guidelines and if Commissioners disagree with those, they should send a recommendation to the City Council to amend the guidelines. Commr. Wynn agreed and stated that this should be done as a separate action. Commr.Curtis stated that the Commission should do this in order to allow the type of design presented with this project. Commr. Wynn agreed but stated it would be best to not be so specific to allow flexibility in style. Commr. Ehdaie stated that she strongly agrees that the Commission needs to apply the Community Design Guidelines. Senior Planner Ricci directed the discussion back to the recommendations and noted that some components, such as site grading, fit into #7 while incorporation of a third style would be in #8 as well as the garage issue. She added that #5, about the carports, will be deleted. ARC3 - 68 Commr. Wynn suggested rewording #1 to note that this project must come back for a second conceptual review. Commr. Curtis strongly supported this change to #1. The applicant stated that on the single-family lots, one of the reasons shared driveways were not used was to avoid having retaining walls between every two houses. She asked for the Commission's preference about the garages. Commr. Andreen suggested a mix of shared driveways with retaining walls and front- loaded garages. Commr. McCovey-Good supported the front-loaded garages, not the retaining walls. Commr. Wynn, agreed with Commr. McCovey-Good and suggested looking at a tandem garage when designing a third floor plan. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to continue the conceptual review for this project to a date uncertainwith the following directional items: 1.The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second conceptual review prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). 2.Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading details such as cut and fill quantities,retaining, and topographic maps. 3.Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditional single- family homes and multi-family unitsacross the creek, and showing pedestrian connections between the multi-family buildings. 4.Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. 5.Clarify parking proposals throughout the project. 6.With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 7.Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 8.Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single-family products. 9.Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing the street with the traditional single-family products such as rear garages, side-loaded garages and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem parking may be supported to minimize the width of driveways. ARC3 - 69 AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Wynn NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Commr. Root The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2.581 Higuera Street.ARCH-0300-2014; Conceptual review of a new, four-story mixed-use project with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space and 24 residential units; C-D zone; PB Companies, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) Associate Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final approval. Randy Alonzo, PB Properties, introduced the project team and explained how this site fits into the larger overall project plan. Ryan Petetit, PB Properties, described the overall design motivations for the three planned buildings. Joel Snyder, architect, explained the simple, elegant proportions and materials proposed with the subject building. He asked for guidance from the ARC regarding the fourth floor design. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ron Batterson, SLO, architect and chair of the Jack House for the last 15 years, stated he was speaking as an individual because he has concerns about the access to the subterranean parking which will require a shear wall right on the property line where there is a stand of redwoods planted by descendants of the Jack House people. He added that the redwoods could not be saved if this wall is built. He noted that he hopes there are alternative ways to access the underground parking. Ken Schwartz, SLO, stated that he is reminding the Commission that it has a responsibility to look at all the public sides of a building and what is missing in the applicant's presentation is the perspective from the Jack House. He stated that he objects strongly to developers who do not show the whole picture in a comprehensive way. He added that the access to the underground parking will result in ramifications for the character of the Jack House public space. Victoria Wood, SLO, stated she is a co-owner of the Kaetzel House across Marsh Street from the Jack House. She agreed that the Commission needs to look at this project in total. She stated she is concerned about the scale and mass being too large on lower Higuera and Marsh Streets. ARC3 - 70 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-1 City of San Luis Obispo 4COMMUNITY DESIGN 4.1 DESIGN QUALITY AND CHARACTER San Luis Obispo’s downtown and residential areas reflect varied architectural styles and a creative design character, which gives our city a unique architectural flavor among the central coast communities. However, within some of the individual residential areas, there are examples of either too much homogeneity of design or incompatible combinations of architectural extremes. In an effort to promote a compatible but diverse character for the Orcutt Area, an emphasis has been placed upon the Craftsman, California Bungalow and California Mission Revival styles. The architectural characteristics of these styles highlight the historic aspects of the area while allowing flexible design, which can be adapted to the rural nature of the site. Creative design should incorporate elements that harmonize with, and take advantage of the Mediterranean climate of the Central Coast, including the indoor-outdoor relationship of the residence to the adjacent landscape, as well as principles of sustainable design and energy efficiency, including “green building.” Cookie-cutter type repetition should be avoided through individual variation and alternation of unit design that respect the views and shape of the lots. It is expected that individual subdivisions and planned developments will be used to implement the general densities identified within the Specific Plan to allow greater flexibility in lot layout and unit design such as zero lot-line units, garages in the rear of units and harmonious massing of units along residential streets. While this Chapter incorporates many standards and guidelines, it is emphasized that guidelines are designed to focus attention on the special features desired in the implementation of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Given the character of the potential development in the Specific Plan, almost all projects will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC). As such this plan seeks to avoid replication of the information, standards, guidelines and processing information contained in the ARC Guidelines. Goal 4.1: New development in the Orcutt Area that is well designed, internally compatible and enhances San Luis Obispo’s unique sense of place. Policy 4.1.1:Encourage a compatible mix of residence designs. Program 4.1.1a: The architectural styles of Craftsman, California Bungalow, and California Mission architectural themes are strongly encouraged in the Orcutt Area as illustrated in Figures 4.1. Program 4.1.1b Design Standards for R-1 and R-2 districts. Zoning design and building development standards are identified in Table 3.1 and include some modifications to City standards that are unique to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan for the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. These design standards (DS) shall apply to all R-2 development; R-1 development is encouraged to observe them as well. DS-1 Refer to Table 3.1 for R-1 and R-2 development standards DS-2 All residences are required to have entries that front the street unless a parking court configuration is utilized. DS-3 All residential lots adjacent to creek/riparian corridors must use open fencing, if any. DS-4 Inter neighborhood connectivity: Project site designs shall incorporate road, pedestrian and bicycle connections into the adjacent neighborhoods ARC3 - 71 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design City of San Luis Obispo 4-2 March 2010 (especially important as there are so many individual land owners) and provide future connection points to development in future phases. Program 4.1.1c Design Guidelines for R-1 and R-2 districts.These design guidelines (DG) supplement the mandatory elements and standards identified in other chapters of this document. In addition these design guidelines also supplement the City’s standard ARC Guidelines to clearly define for owners, builders, architects and designers the desired character of the Orcutt Area residential neighborhood. Section 1: Site Planning DG 1.1 Encourage pedestrian connections to “A” street retail: Projects adjacent to “A” and “B” streets should provide supplemental pedestrian and bike access to these streets to facilitate non-automobile access to retail and office uses located there. DG 1.2 Pedestrian and bicycle connections are encouraged to connect to the creek trail system and the identified bicycle route system as identified on Figure 2.4. These routes should be designed to encourage short cuts to desirable locations to make walking and biking more convenient. DG 1.3 Internal street layout should provide loop circulation in preference to dead end cul-de-sacs. DG 1.4 Streets and paths should incorporate views of local vistas or landmarks and reasonably direct connect to amenity features such as parks, creek path systems and community areas. DG 1.5 Neckdown curbs (bulbouts) at intersections and decorative paving at cross- walks at primary intersections, entries and at parks or recreation areas are encouraged. See Figure 4.2a and 5.8. DG 1.6 Public alleys: Alleys are encouraged where developments face major streets or where alternative parking solutions to conventional street driveways are desired. They also can allow homes to face parks, creek areas or vistas by relaxing automobile access to the front of the residential unit. If utilized, alleys should follow design principles below: x Alley should be straight from one end to the other to facilitate visibility and safety. x Dead-end alleys should be less than 300’ long. x Landscaping should be consistent with the rest of the development with a 4’ minimum parkway strip and one street tree per lot. x Each lot should provide light from a fixture mounted on either a structure or a pavement pedestal. Section 2: Lot Site Design and Building Configuration DG 2.1 Driveways: Shared driveways/curb cuts are encouraged with zero lot line garages/houses and landscape planters. (Figure 4.2 plan and Figure 4.4-b California Bungalow example) DG 2.2 Garage Location: A major factor affecting the character of the streetscape is the location of the garage. To minimize the potential negative visual impact of garages and parking aprons, the following actions are identified subject to individual project review by City: x Alternatives to the standard 18’ driveway curb cut are encouraged. The desired goal is to limit standard 18’ driveways to 60% or less in any project greater than eight units in the R-1 or R-2 zones. ARC3 - 72 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-3 City of San Luis Obispo x Other alternatives include single lane driveways to a garage at the rear of the residential unit, shared driveways for two units, recessed garages which allow a necked down/landscaped apron and alley access. These options are shown in Figure 4.1-b: Typical garage locations and proportions. x Where standard driveways are included, there should be no more that two in an adjacent or consecutive lot configuration. DG 2.3 Side-Drive or Alley Accessed Garages: Side-drive designs with rear yard garages and parking aprons provide design variety and reduced visual emphasis on garages from the street are a preferred alternative to the standard garage location. Examples of this approach are shown in Figure 4.2-b. DG 2.4 Parking Courts: This design approach has the advantages of increasing density and reducing the impact of curb cuts. However there is the potential disadvantage of minimizing the visibility of residential entries and maximizing views of garage doors as seen from the street. To reduce these potential impacts the following actions are identified (see Figure 4.3): x Garages should be recessed behind the homes’ main façade similar to the guidelines for standard lot homes increasing the visibility of the entry and reducing the impact of garage doors and apron parking. x Parking courts should have accent paving which emphasizes the pedestrian route to the entry as well as breaking up the visual expanse of concrete or asphalt paved area. x Landscape areas, including trees, are encouraged to break up paving expanse and views of garages. DG 2.5 Position of Structure: Where feasible, the longest portion of any structure is encouraged to face within 32 degrees of south for improved solar access. Section 3: Building Design; Elements, Colors and Materials DG 3.1 Design Themes: Architectural variations within general residential themes shall be encouraged through the use of Craftsman, California Bungalow or California Mission styles. (Figure 4.4) DG 3.2 Landscape Character: A unifying residential landscape character is encouraged through open or low fencing and utilization of native plant species. DG 3.3 Driveway Materials: Alternative paving materials are recommended for driveways and other residential paths such as stamped/colored concrete, paving stones, tiles, bricks, or City approved permeable paving materials. Use of mid-driveway landscape strips is encouraged. DG 3.4 Porches: All residences are encouraged to have covered porches. These porches may project up to 7 feet from the front property line with design review by the City. (Figures 4.4 and 4.5-a) DG 3.5 Front Yards: Residences are encouraged to provide small patios or lawn play areas with consistent landscaping. Patios with low fence walls, open fences or hedges, and trellis coverings are preferred. (Figure 4.5-a) DG 3.6 Mix of Residential Heights: In predominantly 2-story projects which exceed 20 units, 20% of the homes should be single story scattered throughout the project. In order to reduce the building mass facing the street, the second story portion should generally be located in the rear of ARC3 - 73 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design City of San Luis Obispo 4-4 March 2010 the unit (defined as being set back 20 from the front main façade of the unit), or to one side or in two story bays. (Figure 4.5-b) DG 3.7 Façade Elements: It is desirable to create multiple elements in the façade of two story structures to reduce the visual mass. The residential design should break the structure into three to four distinct elements such as entry, main structure, single story element and the roof. Two story vertical gabled bays and roof dormers can also add variety. (Figure 4.5-b and 4.5-c) DG 3.8 Roof Overhangs: A variety of hips and gables should be used, particularly on the front/street façade to further break up the mass of the structure. Roofs extended over windows for shading and associated brackets are encouraged. DG 3.9 Surface Materials: In developments of more than four homes a minimum of two material pallets are encouraged each with a different primary material. (A primary material is the material used on a minimum of 67% of the building façade; e.g. stucco, wood.) An alternative is to have some of the homes utilize two materials wherein the second material must cover at least 40% of the visible façade. DG 3.10 Roofing Materials: In developments of more than four homes a minimum use of two primary roof materials such as concrete shake, Spanish tile or composition shingles is encouraged. DG 3.11 Color Palettes: In developments of over four homes, it is strongly encouraged to have a minimum of two colors from different color families for each primary body material, such as stucco and/or wood. A minimum of two trim colors shall be selected for each primary color (but not necessarily used on each house). Within an individual building, color variety should relate to a change in materials (stucco to wood) or body material to trim material. DG 3.12 A solar energy source such as solar panels or solar roofing is encouraged per conservation/open space policies. Program 4.1.1d:The following design standards shall apply to all R-3 and R-4 development in the Orcutt Specific Plan Area: DS-5 R-3 and R-4 standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance shall apply in addition to the standards and guidelines provided in this section. DS-6 Parking Rear Setback: 0-5 ft DS-7 All ground floor units will have covered porches/entries in the front (door facing common areas) of the unit. DS-8 All units adjacent to creek/riparian corridors must use open fencing, if any. Program 4.1.1e:Residential R-3 and R-4 development is encouraged to observe the following guidelines in addition to the adopted ARC Community Design Guidelines: DG 4.1 Position of Structure: Where feasible, the longest portion of any structure is encouraged to face within 32 degrees of south for improved solar access. DG 4.2 Paving Materials: Alternative paving is recommended for driveways and other residential paths such as stamped/colored concrete, paving stones, tiles, and bricks. DG 4.3 Scale: Projects over eight units should be broken up into multiple structures. Facades over 150 feet in length should be avoided. ARC3 - 74 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-5 City of San Luis Obispo DG 4.4 Façade Elements: Creation of multiple elements in the façade of two and three story structures to reduce the visual mass is strongly encouraged. The architectural design should break the structure into three to four distinct elements such as entry, main structure, single story element and the roof. Vertical gabled bays and roof dormers can also add variety. (See also Figures 4.5-a and 4.5-b for examples of multiple façade elements.) DG 4.5 Roof Overhangs: A variety of hips and gables should be used, particularly on the front/street façade to further break up the mass of the structure. Roofs extended over windows for shading and associated brackets are encouraged. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof at the edge of the structure. DG 4.6 Surface and Roofing Materials: In developments of more than four units a minimum of two material pallets are encouraged. See DG 3.8 and DG 3.9 for detailed language. DG 4.7 Color Palettes: In developments of over six units, it is strongly encouraged to have a minimum of two colors from different color families for each primary body material, such as stucco and/or wood. A minimum of two trim colors shall be selected for each primary color (but not necessarily used on each unit). Within an individual building, color variety should relate to a change in materials (stucco to wood) or body material to trim material. DG 4.8 Solar Panels: A solar energy source such as solar panels or solar roofing is recommended per conservation/open space policies. DG 4.9 Manufactured Housing Foundations: Foundations shall be enclosed or skirted. Policy 4.1.2: Foster neighborhood connectivity Program 4.1.2a:Residential development design should use local streets configured to enhance neighborhood atmosphere and limit through traffic. Where cul-de-sacs back up to parks or open space, pedestrian/bicycle paths shall be provided to connect the cul-de- sac to the park or open space area. Program 4.1.2b: Design features such as front porches, front yards along streets and entryways facing public walkways, should also be incorporated into residential design to strengthen neighborhood atmosphere. Program 4.1.2c Universally accessible entries are encouraged for all buildings, including single- family houses. Policy 4.1.3: Development along the lower slopes of Righetti Hill shall respect existing elevation contours and shall be designed consistent with Section 7.2, Hillside Development, of the Community Design Guidelines ARC3 - 75 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-9 City of San Luis Obispo FIGURE4.2R-2SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS ARC3 - 76 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design City of San Luis Obispo 4-10 March 2010 FIGURE4.3PARKING COURTS DESIRABLE PARKING COURT UNDESIRABLE PARKING COURT ARC3 - 77 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-11 City of San Luis Obispo FIGURE4.4ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPTS (R-1 AND R-2ZONES) CALIFORNIA MISSION CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW CRAFTSMAN ARC3 - 78 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design City of San Luis Obispo 4-12 March 2010 FIGURE4.5R-2RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CONCEPTS VERTICAL DESIGN ELEMENTS INCORPORATED VARIED BUILDING MASSING ARC3 - 79 ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4 Community Design March 2010 4-13 City of San Luis Obispo FIGURE4.5(CONTINUED):R-2RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CONCEPTS FRONT PORCH DESIGN 4.3 LANDSCAPING Goal 4.3: An attractive and sustainable landscape pattern that unifies and enhances the quality of the development in the Orcutt Area Policy 4.3.1: The landscape characteristics should complement the architectural styles described previously. Trees, shrubs, and groundcovers should be chosen and sited to emphasize their natural shape, form, and structure. Policy 4.3.2: Residential and public area landscapes are encouraged to incorporate California native plant species and other non-native plant species with lower water requirements and drought hardiness. Plants that require low amounts of watering are preferable for the area to reduce the citywide demand for water. Appendix D includes a plant palette with drought resistant and wind resistant species that are recommended for the Orcutt Specific Plan Area. Policy 4.3.3: Development landscaping provided within the Specific Plan Area shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements for tree protection include but are not limited to: construction setbacks from trees; safety fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Policy 4.3.4: Native riparian areas are sensitive to invasive plant species competing with the native species. Non-native, invasive species shall not be transferred into the riparian ARC3 - 80 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 81 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 82 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 83 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 84 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 85 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 86 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 87 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 88 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 89 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 90 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 91 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 92 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 93 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 94 $WWDFKPHQW ARC3 - 95 Attachment 8 Construction Grading Standards MC 15.04.020.II –J101.6 Section 101.6 Special grading standards. The topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be allowed. In all cases the average cross slope of a site shall be determined prior to any grading operations or approval of any grading plan. Where a site does not slope uniformly, the building official or city engineer shall determine average cross slope by proportional weighting of the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas. The percentage of the site, exclusive of building area, to remain in its natural state shall be in accordance with Table J101.6. All graded planes shall be rounded on all edges to blend with natural slopes. The rounded edges shall have a radius equal to one-half the height of the cut or fill slope. Exception:Grading specifically approved and/or conditioned in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map, development proposal, or similar entitlement consistent with General Plan policies and other hillside standards is not subject to the specific grading limitations noted in this section. Appendix Table J101.6 as follows: TABLE J101.6 GRADING TO REMAIN IN NATURAL STATE Percent Average Cross Slope Percent of Site to Remain in Natural State 0-5 0 6-10 25 11-15 40 16-20 60 21-25 80 26-30 90 Above 30 100 (Ord. 1612 § 3, 2015; Ord. 1595 § 6 (part), 2014) ARC3 - 96