The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-03-2016 Item 12 Appeal by Naomi Hoffman regarding 40 Buena Vista Avenue Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY NAOMI HOFFMAN) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S ZONE THAT INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a single family residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby allowing a single family residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SITE DATA REPORT IN BRIEF The Architecture Review Commission’s (ARC) approval of the project is based on findings that the project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines. The project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. Should the City Council uphold the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to deny the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to uphold the appeal, thereby denying the ARC’s decision. The staff recommendation to deny the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to uphold the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date January 31, 2016 Complete Date February 11, 2016 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines 12 Packet Pg. 215 additional background and analysis of the proposed single family residence. DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the “S” overlay a use permit is required for the construction of any residence. Typically, only a building permit is required to construct a single family residence within the R-1 zone. Background On October 28, 2015, the Planning Commission (PC) held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the PC hearing on September 23, 2015. The PC voted to deny the project based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The PC discussed concerns related to pedestrians and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue which is a narrow street with no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and that parking for the four bedroom residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit will not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The PC also discussed concerns for the roof deck and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC. On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the PC’s decision for denial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final use permit approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone. However, Council denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions (Attachment E, City Council Resolution & Meeting Minutes). The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood; b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure; c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck; d. Visual appearance of the support columns; e. Landscaping plans; f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 12 Packet Pg. 216 As highlighted in the following action language from the Council’s resolution (Attachment E), which effectively denied the applicant’s previously requested exceptions, the Council did provide the ARC with the flexibility to grant different exceptions. Revisions to the project resulted in the elimination of the setback exception, reduction of the height exception, and added a minor street yard exception. On January 31, 2016, the applicant resubmitted the revised project plans to respond to the City Council’s direction and be reviewed by the ARC for final approval (Attachment G, Project Plans). On March 7, 2016, the ARC unanimously approved the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and determined the project in compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes). On March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman appealed the ARC’s decision to approve the project, specifically concerning the requested exceptions (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Project Information/Description The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The subject property meets all lot size requirements and was legally created in 1990 with access from Buena Vista Avenue. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. The downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment G, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 445 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure 12 Packet Pg. 217 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION On March 7, 2016, the ARC held a public hearing to review the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and voted 6:0 (Commr. Root absent) to approve the design of the project. The ARC reviewed each directional item identified by the City Council at their January 19, 2016 meeting, and found the revised project to be in conformance with the Community Design Guidelines for hillside development. Each directional item including the revised height and front yard setback exceptions, were discussed and deliberated by the ARC, where minor concerns were identified and addressed through the final ARC Resolution 1003-2016. Specifically, the ARC addressed the following; Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: The contemporary style is suitable for the hillside and not a basis for denial. The modern approach is suitable for the particular site and the ARC added that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and visibility. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure: The ARC recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. The ARC noted that the residence may be an illuminated box on the hillside at night as seen from the Highway 101. However, the ARC recognizes that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the hillside that contribute to the illumination of the hillside as viewed from Highway 101. Overall, the ARC agreed that the glazing of the windows and the rhythm and look are appropriate. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: The ARC observed that the rooftop deck for the proposed residence is the same as a yard, and that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. The ARC agreed that the existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement. One Commissioner indicated they were unsupportive of the rooftop deck. Visual appearance of support columns: The ARC considered the columns to be an improvement from the original conception, while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts, enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. Landscaping plans: The ARC provided a revision to the conditions of the Resolution to address additional landscaping: underneath the house, between the street and house, and the rooftop deck. Height/front yard exception: The ARC Commissioners expressed that they would have used the same arguments and applied the same methodologies for the project design for this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later. The ARC agreed with Staff’s direction in consideration of the give-and- take needed to make the project work on the hillside and that it is not feasible to develop much differently on the lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. 12 Packet Pg. 218 Additional analysis of the directional items is provided in Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes. APPEAL SUMMARY On March 15, 2016, the appellant, Naomi Hoffman, filed an appeal of the ARC decision to approve the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the issues raised by the ARC approval of the height and setback exceptions did not meet the City Council’s direction “To redesign the proposed home without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions.” The appeal includes an attached email from a City Council Member that expresses the intent of the January 19, 2016, motion regarding the project (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Appeal Analysis During the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting, Council’s motion to approve the use permit had been amended to include the words “without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions”. This amendment was recommended by staff in the event that a redesign of the project to eliminate the request for the then proposed height and setback exceptions may result in the need for other exceptions. Staff had reviewed a proposed street yard reduction of 10 feet that would eliminate the need for a building height exception. However, the request for a street yard reduction of 10 feet is inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines. The Zoning Regulations allow a street yard reduction of no less than 18.5 feet for garages that exit directly into the public right-of-way. A variance would be required to reduce the street yard less than 18.5 feet for a garage. While the project may have the ability to comply with the necessary findings for a variance, the reduction would conflict with other City standards. The Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development state that “Each structure shall be located in the most accessible, least visually prominent, most geologically stable, portion of the site, and at the lowest feasible elevation.” The proposed 10 foot street yard reduction would situate the residence higher up on the hill thus increasing the visual prominence of the structure as viewed from Buena Vista Avenue as well as Highway 101, and the project would no longer be located at the lowest feasible elevation. Hillside Development Standards also state that hillside grading to provide a building site and driveway access should be minimized, repositioning the structure closer to the street would increase the amount of grading that would be required to construct the proposed residence. The applicant has worked with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. The ARC included finding #11 to the final resolution (Attachment F) that states “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may 12 Packet Pg. 219 have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.” Table 1: Project Statistics Item Original Design Proposed Redesign a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 15 13.5 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2.a states that reductions in street yards may be approved for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). A reduction of less than 18.5 feet may potentially create an unsafe driveway approach as vehicles parked in the driveway may obscure the public right-of-way. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The new proposed 2.3 foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. CONCLUSION Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the ARC’s decision to allow a single-family residence that includes a minor street yard reduction of 1.5 feet and a height exception of 2.3 feet. The property is a legal lot within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address hillside development. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the 12 Packet Pg. 220 City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. The balancing of these policy objectives was a key factor in developing Staff’s recommendation. Den ying the appeal is consistent with the City Council’s previous direction on the project because the proposed exceptions are different than originally reviewed through the Use Permit process. The new proposed exceptions were unanimously approved by the ARC following the City Council’s direction for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their comments have been incorporated into the resolution as conditions or code requirements, as appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the Appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council may uphold the appeal and deny the application, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. 2. Continue the project and provide direction to the applicant to revise the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, or applicable City regulations. Attachments: a - Resolution A b - Resolution B c - Vicinity Map d - Hoffman Appeal Letter e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes 12 Packet Pg. 221 f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes g - Reduced Project Plans 12 Packet Pg. 222 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the then currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the ARC of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 7, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and approved the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the ARC’s action on March 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 12.a Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and housing production (HE 6). Hillside Development 3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home. 4. The structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property. 5. The project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions 6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed building height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum driveway slope. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the Buena 12.a Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ Vista public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. 8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access. 9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. 11. The proposed minor property development exceptions are warranted due to difficult site constraints (slope), since they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project (SDU-1521-2015), hereby granting final approval of a new single family residence in the R -1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes front yard setback and height exceptions, subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE- 1520-2015). Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 12.a Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. 5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 12.a Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. 12.a Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 12.a Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ 23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 27. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 12.a Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 8 R ______ 31. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 12.a Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the ARC of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 7, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and approved the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on March 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The project is inconsistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because the the structural support piers below the lowest floor are inappropriate for the building design and will have a visual impact toward the property from Highway 101. 12.b Packet Pg. 231 At t a c h m e n t : b - R e s o l u t i o n B ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project (SDU-1521-2015), hereby denying the new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 12.b Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : b - R e s o l u t i o n B ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LO O M I S B U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP SDU-1521-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment 2 12.c Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : c - V i c i n i t y M a p ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 12.d Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : d - H o f f m a n A p p e a l L e t t e r ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 12.d Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : d - H o f f m a n A p p e a l L e t t e r ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 12.d Packet Pg. 236 At t a c h m e n t : d - H o f f m a n A p p e a l L e t t e r ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) RESOLUTION NO. 10689 (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S -OVERLAY ZONE WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE -1520-2015 & SDU-1521- 2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on -street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 12.e Packet Pg. 237 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the single family residence is proposed on a legal lot, has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood and will be subject to redesign to eliminate previously requested exceptions, with final design review by the Architectural Review Commission. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in that the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. The proposed height exception will detract from or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is inconsistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. By allowing the exception, the building will be more prominent on this hillside development site than otherwise allowed under the City's zoning code. Moreover, the subject property includes a roof deck which, due to its design and intended use, will exaggerate, emphasize and play up the increased height of the residence in comparison to and to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. 6. A reduced side yard setback is unacceptable at the subject location because of the steep slope and visibility of the lot on the hillside location, which increases the visual impact of the proposed residence by allowing this exception. Compliance with the setback requirement would result in a less massive building appearance and more articulation of the building walls at the most prominent and highest point on the building from adjacent grade. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 12.e Packet Pg. 238 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 3 SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the proposed project (USE -1520-2015), hereby granting final approval to a use permit for construction of a single family home, but denying the requested exceptions, with direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and set back exceptions. Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit. The Architectural Review Commission will review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards, and for continuing compliance of any design modifications with the General Plan. The ARC shall review concerns including but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e. Landscaping plans, f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City's Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 5. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 6. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 7. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 12.e Packet Pg. 239 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 4 8. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 9. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 10. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 12. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A recording fee will be required from the applicant. 13. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4' accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 14. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way 1' 1•:' 12.e Packet Pg. 240 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 5 shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off -set angle. 15. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line -of -sight from a backing vehicle to on -coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line -of -sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 16. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 17. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 19. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 12.e Packet Pg. 241 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 6 21. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 22. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post -development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.13. 24. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 25. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15 -gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 12.e Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 7 28. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city -approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 29. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 30. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 31. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class -A fire -rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub -floor vents. 32. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Mayor Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx NOES: Council Member Christianson ABSENT: None 12.e Packet Pg. 243 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 2016. 1 Mayor Jan x A McGinley, MMC lerk APPROVED AS TO Dietrick City Attorney Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _Z_5:1'day of Fc.4n`.'. ?.e 1 fp Ik 4 Tra i . McGinley, MMC 12.e Packet Pg. 244 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 3 Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, January 19, 2016 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh*, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx. Council Member Ashbaugh joined the meeting at 4:04 p.m. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; Traci McGinley, City Clerk; John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. BUSINESS ITEM 1. PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE Public Works Director Grigsby and Public Works Deputy Director Bochum presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Palm Nipomo Parking Structure" and presented the contents of the report. Bryce Engstrom, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, Kevin Harris, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, Damien Mavis, The Creamery, Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, Dave Hannings, San Luis Obispo, and Amy Kardel, San Luis Obispo, provided comments in support of the project. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, and Gregg Menges, San Luis Obispo, provided comments and concerns regarding the project. San Luis Obispo Page I 12.e Packet Pg. 245 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Pape 2 Public Works Deputy Director Bochum addressed comments and concerns by the public. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to amend page 11 of the Agenda Packet: Thursday Average) 12:00 p.m. -2:00 p.m. Chart from 645 spaces to 852 spaces and to approve staff recommendations for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to: 1. That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project. 2. That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained. 3. Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply. 4. Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area. 5. Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. An informal welcome celebration for new Police Chief Deanna Cantrell was held immediately following the 4:00 p.m. meeting in the Council Hearing Room. ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx. Council Members Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance. 12.e Packet Pg. 246 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 3 INTRODUCTION 2. TRACI R. MCGINLEY, CITY CLERK City Manager Lichtig provided a brief introduction. PRESENTATION 3. BADGING CEREMONY AND OATH FOR POLICE CHIEF DEANNA CANTRELL LICHTIG/MCGINLEY — 10 MINUTES) City Manager Lichtig provided a brief introduction. City Clerk McGinley administered the Oath of Office to Police Chief Cantrell. . PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Sandy Simon, Citizens' Climate Lobby, spoke about a letter that she submitted to the Mayor and City Council related to climate changes and requested that the City Council consider a Resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels. Odile Aural, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a petition regarding the ratio of students vs. number of residents in the community and urged support from the City Council to address concerns relating to housing for students by working with constituents. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the health and safety of the community, relating to traffic congestion and efforts of enforcement for various bicyclist violations. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with transportation challenges for the homeless people in the City. Cory Jones, San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council to consider an ordinance, concerning the ban of single use plastic water bottles. Steve Barach, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a handout submitted to the City Council, concerning the maintenance of the creek by property owners and other related responsibilities. Carolyji Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the petition and comments provided by Ms. Odile related to Cal Poly and student housing. Steve Hansen, Citizens' Climate Lobby, spoke on the present climate changes and urged support from the City Council to consider a Resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels. Chris Gilbert. Arroyo Grande, urged the City Council to oppose any conversions of tennis courts to pickleball courts. Peggy Koteen, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the limited availability of tennis courts that are in the City. 12.e Packet Pg. 247 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19 2016 Page 4 Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to the petition and comments provided by Ms. Odile, relating to Cal Poly and student housing. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 13, with removal of Item 8 for separate consideration at the request of Council Member Ashbaugh. Council Ashbaugh noted that due to a potential conflict of interest he would recuse himself from Items 11 and 12. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17 AND DECEMBER 1 2015 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 17 and December 1, 2015. 6. AUTHORIZE A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE HOUSING RELATED PARKS PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10685 (2016 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing an application in the amount of $288,650 to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for Housing Related Parks Program funds to provide financial assistance to the Public Works department for park upgrades at Sinsheimer Park." 7. LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICATION 91392, CONTRACT AWARD AND BUDGET AMENDMENT Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, Mila Vujovich-LaBarre San Luis Obispo, and Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo provided comments concerning the Laguna Lake Dredging. Natural Resources Manager Hill addressed inquiries provided by the City Council. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Award and approve a consultant services agreement with the firm MNS Engineers, Inc. MNS") in an amount not -to -exceed $445,000 for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management pursuant to Request for Proposals Specification No. 91392; and 12.e Packet Pg. 248 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 5 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to move funds between phases within the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP. 8. WELL SITERELINQUISHMENT A"I" 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN (QUIKV CAR WASH) Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, and Brian Engleton, San Luis Obispo, provided comments concerning the Well Site Relinquishment. Hamish Marshall, Quiky Car Wash, responded to correspondences and public comments related to the Well Site on the property. Utilities Deputy Director Floyd addressed inquiries provided by the City Council. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH VOTING NO), to continue the item to a date uncertain allowing counsel to explore the legal ramifications of the proposed relinquishment. 9. APPROVAL OF FINAL 2015 POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS MASTER PLAN MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10686 (2016 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan." 10. APPROVAL OF FINAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL STRATEGY MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10687 (2016 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy." 11. AMENDMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT OF THE PALM DEVELOPMENT SITE Vice Mayor Ashbaugh recused himself from this item, as there may be a potential conflict of interest. 12.e Packet Pg. 249 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Paae 6 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH RECUSED), to adopt Resolution No. 10688 (2016 Series) as amended, entitled a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a First Amendment of Purchase and Sale -Palm Development Site, authorizing the sale of City property and authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute closing documents," the Mayor to execute the grant deed, and to allow the City Attorney to approve non substantive changes to the transactional documents. 12. MARGARITA & FOOTHILL. LIFT STATION REPLACEMENTS, SPEC. NO. 91214 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 Vice Mayor Ashbaugh recused himself from this item, as there may be a potential conflict of interest. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH RECUSED), to: 1. Approve a contract amendment of $104,854 for the design services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements, Spec. No. 91214. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request of $104,854 from Sewer Fund Working Capital to the project's design phase to support this request. 3. Approve increases in the 2016-17 construction budget from $1,100,000 to $1,600,000 and the construction management budget from $125,000 to $155,000 for the Foothill Lift Station Replacement. 13. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety for a Fiscal Year 2016-17 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to excccd $250,000. 2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. 12.e Packet Pg. 250 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Par -e 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S -OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION Prior to the Public Hearing, Council Member Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor Carpenter, and Mayor Marx explained that they met with Naomi Hoffman, a member of the community who expresses support to denial of the appeal. Council Member Rivoire met with William Cochran and Pam Orth, members of the community who express support to denial of the appeal. Mayor Marx met with Ms. Hoffman, Vice Mayor Carpenter met with Ms. Hoffinan. Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Bell narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "48 Buena Vista Avenue Use 1520-2015 (PC Appeal)," reviewed the contents of the report, and responded to City Council inquiries. Mayor Marx recessed the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Mayor Marx called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Roger Frederickson, Attorney for Applicant, spoke about the appeal and directional items that were addressed by the Planning Commission. Angela Schmiede, Co -Applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, reviewed the contents of the report and stated that the project meets all City guidelines. Jeff Kraft, Co -Applicant, spoke about the contents of the report and presented a timeline of events regarding the project. Following discussion, the following members of the public provided comments and feedback concerning the applicant's proposal: William Cochran San Luis Obispo, Amy fardel, San Luis Obispo, Bob Schragg, San Luis Obispo, Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, Robert Karger, San Luis Obispo, Shirley Ready, San Luis Obispo, Naomi Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, Chris Stier, San Luis Obispo, Wilda Rosene, San Luis Obispo, Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, Carolyn Smith San Luis Obispo, Jamie Lopes, San Luis Obispo, Todd Smith, San Luis Obispo, Steve Delmartin, San Luis Obispo, Pat Dellario, San Luis Obispo, H. Mels Siverson, San Luis Obispo. Following discussion, the following members of the public provided comments expressing support to the applicant's proposal: Linda White, San Luis Obispo, Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, and Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo. 12.e Packet Pg. 251 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Basi Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 8 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASIIBAUGII, SECOND BY MAYOR MARX, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON VOTING NO), to adopt Resolution No. 10689 2016 Series) as amended, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the construction of a single-family residence with an attached cPenndary dWe.11ing unit in the C -Overlay zone With a eategnrieal exemption from environmental review as represented in the Planning Commission agenda report and attachments dated January 19, 2016 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue USE -1520-2015 & SDU-1521-215)," upholding the appeal of the planning Commission's action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval, but denying requested exceptions application USE -1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: A use permit for construction of a single family home with direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and set back exceptions. Items 5-8 of Section 1 Findings are hereby deleted and Items 1-2 of Section 1 Findings of the proposed amended Resolution are hereby added in their place. LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Marx and Council Member Ashbaugh reported on City activities. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS By consensus, Council directed staff to agendize consideration of a resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels at a future Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Jo Paul Maier Assistant City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 03/15/2016 12.e Packet Pg. 252 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y C o u n c i l J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 R e s o l u t i o n & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes exceptions to the front yard building setback and height, with a categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Buena Vista Avenue BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org VIA: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager TAC FILE NUMBER: SDU-1521-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA SUMMARY The applicant has proposed to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes a height and setback exception on a sloping lot. On January 19, 2016, the City Council approved the construction of the home, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the project to conform to the Community Design Guidelines without the proposed height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date January 31, 2016 Complete Date February 11, 2016 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines Meeting Date: March 7, 2016 Item Number: 2 ARC2-1 12.f Packet Pg. 253 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 Admin Review August 27, 2015 PC Review September 23, 2015 PC Denial October 28, 2015 PC Appeal October 29, 2015 CC Approval January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design ReviewUsePermitApproved ARC Review March 7, 2016 The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the amount of public input on the project as well as the Use Permit appeal to the City Council, the Director has forwarded the design review to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). 1.0 BACKGROUND For additional background information see Attachment 4, Project Background. 2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Hillside Development Standards, the General Plan and applicable City standards. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, over 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with access from Buena Vista Avenue in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. 3.2 Project Description: The proposed project includes the following features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage ARC2-2 12.f Packet Pg. 254 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 406 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure 3.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback Buena Vista Avenue) 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure Average Natural Grade) 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 4.0 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e. Landscaping plans, f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas known as the Cal Poly- Cuesta Park Area. The applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community ARC2-3 12.f Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4 Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to implement General Plan Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. 4.1 Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the Urban Reserve Line. The proposed residence is located as close as possible to Buena Vista Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the minimum street yard setback of 18.5 feet with a 14% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access 1. As discussed at the Planning Commission/City Council hearings, access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue. Height and Street Setback Exceptions: The City Council denied the originally proposed exceptions and directed the applicant to redesign the project to comply with property development standards and the Hillside Development Standards. The applicant has worked with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2a states that reductions in street yards may be approved for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). If the building were to be located any closer to the street, the driveway would not comply with street yard requirements. Likewise, if the residence was located further down the hillside a steeper driveway grade would be required that would be out of compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and potentially create an unsafe driveway approach. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed 2.3 foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of- way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of grading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent. ARC2-4 12.f Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. 4.2 Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3). Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on a site that does not block views from adjacent properties. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 and Cuesta Park. There are two existing residences located approximately 30 feet higher on the ridge above the subject property directly on the ridgeline 2. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so as not to destroy the natural character of the site. Directional Item A (Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood): The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with varying architectural styles, with residences range in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet excluding garages and secondary units). The residence has been designed well below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood’s architectural characteristics. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. The contemporary design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations include interesting architectural treatments. Directional Item B (Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure): The residence is located 150 feet above and over 1,000 feet from Highway 101. At this distance the reflectivity of the proposed windows will have insignificant impact on Highway 101. The proposed windows reduce the mass and the prominence of the structure as viewed from Highway 101. The project also includes cantilevered decks that create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Placement of Structure: Each proposed structure shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from a public street is minimized. ARC2-5 12.f Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 Directional Item C (Appropriateness of the roof top deck): Per the City’s grading standards MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence, providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met, including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction. The project provides usable outdoor space in the form of balconies and a roof deck consistent with this requirement. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space and is vacant. The property to the south is zoned R-1-S and is also vacant. Directional Item D (Visual appearance of the support columns): The applicant’s original design of the residence included a third level that was proposed in order to maintain compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development 3. In order to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2015, the applicant met with city staff and evaluated removing the third level from the residence and alternatively cantilevering the main floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. The removal of the third level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. The columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side exceed six feet; however, the proposed unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that reduces the mass of the structure. Directional Item E (Landscaping plans): Landscape plans show eight new oak trees proposed on the site surrounding the home. The applicant has proposed these trees to integrate the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time the proposed oak trees will provide additional screening of the property and soften the appearance of the building when viewed from Highway 101, similarly to the adjacent residences at the top of the ridgeline. 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed six feet. Figure 2: (top) Original three level design bottom) Revised two level design. ARC2-6 12.f Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 Directional Item F (Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101): The property can be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound. The project site is located within city limits and is therefore outside of the State eligible scenic corridor, which generally runs from Los Angeles County to Paso Robles. The residence is visible from Highway 101 southbound for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet. During this view shed the site is partially obstructed from view by several freeway billboards. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue action on the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 6.2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy document. The ARC should specify findings. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. Project Background 5. PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes) 6. City Council Hearing January 19, 2016 (Staff Report & Resolution) Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC2-7 12.f Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 7, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, R-1-S ZONE; SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, on March 7, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of reviewing the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521- 2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby approves the design of the single-family residence on a sloping site, including a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015) based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 12.f Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and housing production (HE 6). Hillside Development 3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home. 4. Consistent with Planning Commission direction, the structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property. 5. Consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines, the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions 6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed maximum building height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum driveway slope. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. 8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access. 12.f Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 3 9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. 11. The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission does hereby grant final approval of application SDU-1521-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE-1520-2015). Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as 12.f Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 4 part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. 5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along 12.f Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 5 both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off- set angle. 14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 12.f Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 6 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on- site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 12.f Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 7 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 27. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 31. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Curtis and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn NOES: None. REFRAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Root The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March, 2016. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission 12.f Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Architectural Review Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 7, 2016 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioner Allen Root Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad CALL TO ORDER Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. and proposed the following changes to the agenda: 1) Consideration of Minutes to follow Public Hearings; and 2) reversed the order of Public Hearing Items 2 and 3. There were no objections. Commissioner Andreen announced she would step down from Item 2 due to a potential conflict of interest. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Higuera Street Right of Way. Review of wireless telecommunication facility proposal to place antennas and associated equipment on existing or replaced traffic signal poles (total of 6) within the public right-of-way along Higuera Street between Carmel Street and Osos Street; C-D-H zone; Crown Castle Communication Inc., applicant. Chair Wynn announced that the Applicant was requesting a continuance. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ACTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Soll, the Commission unanimously continued Item 1 by roll call vote: 12.f Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 2 AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Soll, Root, Wynn NOES: None REFRAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None ACTION: Upon a motion made by Commissioner Andreen seconded by Commissioner Soll to made motion to continue Item 1 to a date uncertain passed unanimously. 2. 128 Chorro Street. APPL-1974-2015; Continued review of an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Guest Quarters permit. Revised project includes the requested approval of a side yard setback of four feet where five feet is normally required for an addition along the north property line. (GUST-1645-2015); Holly & Tony Garcia, applicant. Commissioner Andreen recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest (resides in the neighborhood). Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen provided the Staff report. He noted that the requested setback is minor in nature and consistent with the development pattern of neighborhood, and clarified that Finding #5 in Section 1 of the draft resolution should read “guest quarters have been moved to the western portion.” Architect Frances Gibbs, on behalf of the Applicant, offered to respond to questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Patricia Andreen, representing the neighborhood, reported that she had not had any discussions about this project with any of the Commissioners. She spoke in favor of the revised design and indicated that she had no objections to the setback reduction. She asked that if the Commission finds it appropriate, she would ask that it invoke tree protection measures and require the Applicant to protect vegetation and its roots during construction. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to questions from the Commission, Architect Gibbs indicated she had discussed vegetation-protection measures with the Applicant and noted they have no objections. She also confirmed that the skylight over the existing garage is operable. Commissioner Curtis indicated he saw no need for an exception to the setback and expressed objections to creating an additional non-conforming condition. He added that he thought it possible to design an addition that could conform to all the standards. 12.f Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 3 Staff responded that the request for the exception to the setback was not an unusual request for that neighborhood. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLL , the Commission adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s action to approve a guest quarters in the low- density residential zone, as amended (Condition #10: add protection of fence and vegetation during construction). Motion passed 4:1:1:1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: Curtis RECUSED: Andreen ABSENT: Root 3. 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SDU-1521-2015; Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; R-1-S zone; Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant. Commissioner Andreen returned to the dais. Deputy Director Davidson introduced Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, who provided the in- depth Staff report. He emphasized that architectural review is required due to the Special Considerations Overlay (S-Overlay), which designates the location as a sensitive site due to the hillside development and announced that there are eight (8) vacant properties within vicinity that will undergo same process. Assistant Planner Bell informed the ARC that the City Council approved the Use Permit while denying proposed exceptions and has asked that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review the project and address the following issues: 1) traditional characteristics of neighborhood; 2) reflectivity of amount of glass; 3) appropriateness of rooftop deck; 4) visual appearance of support columns; 5) landscaping plans; and 6) prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. Assistant Planner Bell displayed Applicant-provided renderings to demonstrate the project design and responded to numerous Commission questions regarding exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards (HDS), street yard setback exceptions, landscaping plans, and the proposed rooftop deck and balconies. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere pointed out the Applicant had made revisions to the project based on City Council direction, which resulted in the current proposed height and setback exceptions. Staff concluded that it is not unusual to request a height exception on a sloping lot as it is a significant constraint. 12.f Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 4 Todd Smith, Canon, representing the Applicant, explained the nature and need for the height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft argued in favor of approving the project with the requested exceptions. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Wynn reported that numerous correspondences have been received by Staff and Commission on this item and they are posted on the City’s website. The following residents of San Luis Obispo voiced objections to the proposed project and urged denial, citing concerns about the size of the building footprint, issues with neighborhood compatibility, height and setback exceptions, landscaping plan, traffic and emergency access, impacts to the Highway 101 view shed, the rooftop deck and potential for noise: Naomi Hoffman Shirley Ready Robert Karger James Lopes Bill Cochran Pat Dellario Sandra Rowley, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) Mila Vujovich-La Barre John Rogers, Canon, spoke in favor of the project. Applicant Jeff Kraft provided rebuttal arguments to community concerns. COMMISSION COMMENT Staff responded to additional questions from the Commission. Commission discussion followed specifically to address each of the six concerns the City Council directed the ARC to review and consider: 1. Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: Commissioner Andreen commented that although the style may not be what the neighbors would have selected, the contemporary style suitable for the hillside and not a basis for denial. Commissioner Ehdaie recommended a more subdued, neutral color scheme that would blend better with the nature of the hillsides. Commissioner Curtis indicated the modern approach is suitable for the particular site and added that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and visibility. Commissioner Nemcik reiterated the community’s desire for a smaller mass and noted that the clean lines of style contribute to that. Chair Wynn had no issues with the design’s modernist box style. 12.f Packet Pg. 270 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 5 2. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure. Staff reported that the design guidelines stress minimizing the glazing to the furthest extent possible but because there is not a specific threshold, it comes down to compatibility and appropriateness more than percentage. Commissioner Andreen recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred. Commissioner Curtis observed that the residence will be an illuminated box on the hillside at night as seen from the scenic corridor freeway. Chair Wynn commented that this particular concern is similar to the issue of prominence and suggested binding them together in discussion. Commissioner Andreen indicated that prominence concerns are also tied to landscaping, having thought strongly about reducing prominence with trees. Vice-Chair Ehdaie wondered what reducing prominence on this project communicates about other prominent residences in the vicinity. Commissioner Curtis suggested the only feasible way to reduce prominence at night is to break up the continuous expanse of glass. Commissioner Nemcik shared she had no issue with glazing and that the rhythm and look are appropriate. Chair Wynn agreed that this structure is an illuminated box that will most certainly be seen from Highway 101 but concurs with Vice- Chair Ehdaie that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the hillside. 3. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: Commissioner Andreen stated she’s conflicted between the concerns of neighbors and its proposed use for a play area for children. Commissioner Nemcik observed that the rooftop deck is the same as a yard. Commissioner Soll reiterated Staff’s commentary that side and front decks already meet minimum outdoor area requirements. Commissioner Curtis offered that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. Chair Wynn, in support, stated that existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement. Commissioner Andreen, citing Commissioner Nemcik’s comments, indicated support to achieve quorum. Vice-Chair Ehdaie inquired whether it is in Commission purview to discuss use. Chair Wynn responded by indicating that the Council requested reviewing appropriateness, which is understood to include use. Commissioner Soll indicated she was unsupportive. 4. Visual appearance of support columns. Commissioner Andreen considered columns to be an improvement from the original conception. Commissioner Curtis stated that while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts, enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. A more appropriate option, he added, would to have it open. Commissioner Nemcik remarked piers are more appropriate and recommended the Commission address materials and mitigation improvements in the open area underneath the residence as part of motion. Commissioners Soll, Andreen Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred. 12.f Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 6 5. Landscaping plans: In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Deputy Director Davidson affirmed that Condition #6 is a reasonably comprehensive condition but if the Commission wishes to add language, Staff would accommodate it. Chair Wynn pointed out that the Condition itself is the appropriate place for three additional landscape plans: underneath the house, between the street and house, and the rooftop deck. Commission confirmed support by consensus. 6. Height exception: Chair Wynn shared that he would have used the same arguments and applied the same methodologies had he been working on this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later. He stated that he is inclined to move with Staff’s direction in consideration of the give-and-take needed to make the project work on the hillside and commented that if no exception were granted, the City would end up with more destruction on the hillside. Commissioner Andreen agreed that her analysis would be the same. Commissioner Curtis voiced his opinion that it is not feasible to develop much differently on this lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. Commissioner Soll differentiated between the project on paper, which she would have difficulty approving, and the project as she views it situated on a legal lot. Vice-Chair Ehdaie commended the solutions in design and supported the exceptions. Commissioner Nemcik agreed with Staff’s recommendations. Commission discussion followed regarding the color scheme. Commissioner Andreen requested a modification of the color palette to lighter earth tones. Other members of the Commission agreed. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS to adopt a Resolution approving a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception with a categorical exemption from environmental review (40 Buena Vista Avenue), as amended (modify Condition #6 to stipulate that the landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare; add a new condition requiring the Applicant to submit a revised color/materials board that includes lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair; and to add a new Finding, as follows: “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.”). Motion passed on the following 6:0 roll call vote: AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: None REFRAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Root 12.f Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 7 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Commissioner Curtis proposed the following amendments to the Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2016: 1) Insertion on Page 3, third paragraph: “provided to the ARC and the Airport…” 2) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph: strike “specific”, change to “the proposed” 3) Insertion and Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, first sentence: “were truly representative of” ; strike “a general” and change to “stated styles”; and strike “representation” and “historically”. 4) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, second sentence: strike “commented”, change to “opined” ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS to approve the Minutes, as amended, passed unanimously 6:0. AGENDA FORECAST Deputy Director Davidson announced agenda items for the next two ARC Meetings, as follows: March 21: Motel Inn project; conceptual review of affordable housing component of Via Tuscano in Margarita Area. April 4: BMW relocation from LOVR to Calle Joaquin auto lot; 323 Grand Avenue previously ARC-reviewed, appealed to City Council and re-submitted; deck improvement project at relocated SLO Brew’s 736 Higuera site; POSSIBLE: neighborhood signage with Public Works Wayfinding Program. ADJOURNMENT MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIR EHDAIE, and carried 6:0 to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Brad T. Opstad Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 18, 2016. 12.f Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : f - A R C M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 S t a f f R e p o r t & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Cover Sheet CS.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING AR 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 M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 6 4 0 & 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a F o r m e r l y k n o w n a s 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 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 NO . 6 5 3 2 8 JO H N C . ROGER S I V REGISTER E D P R O F ESSIONA L E N G I N EER S T ATE OF CA L I F O R NIA EX P . CIV I L 9- 3 0 - 1 7 L I M I T O F G R A D I N G BA L A N C E R E M A I N S P E R M I A B L E Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 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 3 474.02 TOW -456 EG= 18.02 = 8' UPPER LEVEL 464.02 TOW-455.5 EG=8.52' LOWER LEVEL 462.02 TOW-441 EG=21.02=9' LOWER LEVEL 2 TOW-456EG=1802== (8' MIN. SETBACK) (13'6"' MIN. SETBACK) TOW 474.02-EG 443=31.02=13'6" UPPER LEVEL462.02 TOW-437 EG=25.02'=11' LOWER LEVEL TOW 474.02'-EG 439.3'=34.72= 15' (15' MIN. SETBACK) TOW 473.4'-EG 444'=29.4'= 12.5' UPPER LEVEL (12' 6" MIN. SETBACK) STAIR TOWER TOW 477.27' -449 EG = 28.27 = 12' OW47727'449EG (12' MIN. SETBACK) TOW 474.02-454.3 EG = 19.73= 8.5' 10' 1. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 2. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 4 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A 3. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 8 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A FI R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R 1,706 sf 463 sf NON PERMIABLE NON PERMIABLE DE C K SE E D R I V E W A Y UT I L I T I E S E X I S T I N G TR E E S A N D DR A I N A G E P L A N FO R D E T A I L S DE T A I L E D S E T B A C K S AV E R A G E G R A D E C A L C U L A T I O N S MA X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N S SET BACK AND MAXIMUM HEIGHTCALCULATIONS REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS LAYOUT GRADING LIMITS PERMIABLE CALCULATIONS 00 7 AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) 46 0 . 1 4 F L O W 45 7 . 4 4 F L O W 45 8 . 7 9 F L O W 12 ' - 6 " 46 4 . 0 2 AVERAGE GRADE 456+437=893/2=446.48 474.02-446.48= 27.50 4.7 (10' 6"' MIN. SETBACK) 8' 6" 18' 6" SETBACK HEIGHT ABOVE STREET 28' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 473.40-467= 6' 4" 27' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 474.02-467= 7' 25' HEIGHT NO EXCEPTION 474.91-466= 8' 11" MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY DESENT UPPER LEVEL STAIR TOWERSTAIR TOWER UPPER LEVEL CL O S E S T P O S S I B L E H O U S E 3 0 0 F E E T STAIRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTOWEROO 14 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 9 " 5' - 5 " 10 ' - 9 " 13 ' - 1 " 15 ' 13 ' - 5 " 24'-1" Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) SI T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 : 1 0 EX . 1 6 " P I N E TR E E RU N O F F D I S S I P A T I O N SW A L E ( 1 2 " D E E P W / LE V E L T O P ) 20 ' S E T B A C K 5.86'(5' MIN. SETBACK) 9.17'(9' MIN. SETBACK) 12.04'(12' MIN. SETBACK) 13.18'(13' MIN. SETBACK) Site Plan A1.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKINGSEE CIVIL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING:1.FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 2.UTILITY SERVICES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)3.SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 4.EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 5.CONTOURS & SPOT ELEVATIONS 6.FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS 7.RETAINING WALLS 8.PUBLIC WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINS LANDSCAPE NOTES 1.NO ADDITIONAL SPECIES WILL BE PLANTED.2.THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.1, SEE SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS 2. ALL PLANTS ARE NATIVE DROUGHT TOLLERANT SPEICES TO BE IRRAGATED BY RAINWATER/GRAY-WATER SYSTEM 3. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN9. DETAILED SET BACK AND ELEVATIONS F R O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A UNO F F D I S S UP P E R D E C K ADU DECK MAIN LEVEL DECK 11 0 ' TO C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S WH I C H I S 1 5 - 2 0 H I G H E R 200' TO C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S WH I C H I S 4 0 - 5 0 ' L O W E R 300' TO C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S 18 ' 6 " Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) A B C D1 FL O O R P L A N : R O O F L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 2X WOOD DECKING 2X W O O D S L E E P E R TPO ROOF MEMBRANE RO O F D E T A I L SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Floor Plans Roof Level A2.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E O F FI N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E R E C E S S E D I N WA L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 INCH PE R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " ( R E F E R TO P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R T E M P E R E D GL A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O B E D R O O M S AN D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , F R O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A FR O N T P O R C H U P P E R D E C K NO S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K IM P A C T S D E C K Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 6 5 43 2 12 11 13 14 F E A 10 Ki t c h e n 12 ' - 0 " x 1 1 ' - 0 " 14 0 F T ² Li v i n g 12 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 20 0 F T ² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y AD U SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N FU T U R E S T A I R FU T U R E R O L L I N G BA R N D O O R FL O O R P L A N : T O P L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 02A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 Floor Plans Top Level A2.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D 44 2 S Q U A R E FO O T A D U ADU DECK AD U A C C E S S 24'-11" LI N E O F B U I L D I N G W I T H S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K E X C E P T I O N IM P A C T S N O O N E C L O S E S T P O S S I B L E N I E G H B O R 3 0 0 ' 1' - 3 " 3' - 0 " Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 2 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 14 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 5 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 15 1 F T ² FL O O R P L A N : M A I N L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G H i J K L MN 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 X X Floor Plans Main Level A2.2 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D MAIN LEVEL DECK AD U DE C K AB O V E FAttachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) ST E P P E D B A C K 3 ' F O R S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K CL O S E S T P O S S I B L E N I E G H B O R 3 0 0 ' 7. 0 6 f t ST R E E T L E V E L BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L 9. 6 5 f t ST R E E T L E V E L B E Y O N D OR I G I N A L S U B M I T A L M E E T S H I L L S I D E DE S I G N G U I D E L I N E S L O W E S T F L O O R WI T H I N 6 ' O F G R A D E P L A N N I N G CO M M I S S I O N D I D N O T L I K E T H E B U L K EL I M I N A T E D L O W E R L E V E L . T H I S E L E V A T I O N W I L L O N L Y B E SE E N F R O M U S 1 0 1 4 , 0 0 0 ' - 1 , 0 0 0 ' A W A Y 1 5 0 ' B E L O W F O R SE C O N D S W H I L E T R A V E L I N G 5 5 M P H . T H E C O L U M N S A R E I N TH E S H A D O W O F T H E D E C K A N D L A N D S C A P I N G G O E S U N D E R TH E H O U S E . T H E C O L U M N S W I L L N O T B E P E R C E P T I B L E , T H I S CO U L D B E A 6 ' F O U N D A T I O N W A L L A N D M E E T T H E G U I D E L I N E S . Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) 12.13 ft 7.60 ft ne w r o l l e d c u r b an d g u t t e r ST E P P E D B A C K 3 ' F O R RE Q U I R E D S I D E Y A R D S E T BA C K M O V E S B A C K O F BU I L D I N G O U T B Y 1 ' 3 " 27' 4" 27' 4" 12.13 ft 27' 4" BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L 27 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 7 ' A B O V E ST R E E T 3 0 ' 6 " F R O M T H E S T R E E T 28 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 6 ' 4 " A B O V E ST R E E T 3 2 ' F R O M T H E S T R E E T 25 ' H E I G H T N O E X C E P T I O N 8 ' 1 1 " A B O V E TH E S T R E E T 2 2 ' F R O M T H E S T R E E T (L O O S E 2 P A R K I N G S P A C E S R E Q U I R E S 10 ' F R O N T Y A R D E X C E P T I O N ) 6' 4 " TO P O F W A L L 8' 1 1 " 7' ST R E E T L E V E L ST R E E T L E V E L ST R E E T L E V E L EX C E P T I O N C O M P A R I S I O N 1' 3 " IN C R E A S E S D U E T O N O S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 1' 3 " Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Attachment 3 12.g Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : g - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 3 0 8 : 4 0 B u e n a V i s t a ( S D U - 1 5 2 1 - 2 0 1 5 ) A p p e a l ) Page intentionally left blank. AF'R 2 7 ?T1 16 THENewspaper of the Central Coast MBUNE 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California foregoing is true and correct. In and for the County of San Luis Obispo CMOF AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SIM idWOB1<I 1, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of En - SAN LUIS OBISf O CITY COUNCIL vironmental Impact for the project; and, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AD # 2402041 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO The San Luis Obispo o Council Invites t alE interested persons to attend a public OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK hearing on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, at 6:00 Road (a.k.a. "West Creek"; Application No. p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, Se DV -1769-2015) as conditioned therein. 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Call- fornia, relative to the following: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED LIT i�tAOMi HOFFMANI t7F THE. ARCHITE+C- ss. TURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECI- County of San Luis Obispo SIGN TO APPROVE A__N_EW SINGLE -A.. v nrelncur�c Ila TNF 0-1 S I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the TO ,t t=w�1 TRI.1, OVILurmlr or-, BACK AND HEIGHT 40 BUENA VISTA County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not AVENUE) interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at A public hearing to consider an appeal of all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned the Architectural Review Commission's de- cision to adopt a Resolution entitled "A Re-- was, eswas, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of elution of the City Council of the City of THE TRIBUNE a news a er of eneral Circulation San Luis Obispo. California, denying the , p p g , i appeal of thhee designof a new single-family printed and published daily at the City of San Luis residence In the R -1•S (Special Considers - ons Oved) Zone that includes front Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice setback and height exceptions, with a cyate at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was gorical exemption from environmental re- view, as represented in the City Council published in the above-named newspaper and not in any agenda repon and attachments dated May supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit- 3. 2016 (40 Buena Vista Avenue sDU- � 1521-2015)." APRIL 22, 2016, that said newspaper was duly and 2. CONSIDEiiATION OF A NEW RESI- regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of DENTIAL r IUELDIVi51ON tEf--TR 224 74 general circulation b Decree entered in the Superior W%4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAS g Y p �� LOCATED AT ORcurr ANO Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on TANK FARM ROADS IN THE ORCUn June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code AREA SPECIFIC PLANKING AREA LASPi AND CONSIDERATION OF AN of the State of California. INITIAL STUDY AMU MITIGATED NEGA I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the A public hearing to consider the Planning foregoing is true and correct. Commission's recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the following: 1, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of En - vironmental Impact for the project; and, (S ignat of Principal Clerk) DATED: APRIL 22, 2016 2. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No. 309.3, ER -TR 224-14) creating 77 lots and AD COST: $271.44 up to 172 residential units at 1299 Orcutt Road (a.k.a. "West Creek"; Application No. Se DV -1769-2015) as conditioned therein. 3. Recommendations to be considered by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) during Final Design Review of the project as follows: a, Consider prohibiting a swimming pool as part of the project; and, b. Provide $pedal attention to reducing heights of retaining walls in the final de- sign. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limit- ed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Reports for this meeting will be available for review In the City Clerks Office and on- line at www.slocltv.a� ars Wednesday, April 27, 2018. Please call the City Clsnes Office at (805) 781-7100 for more Informa- tion, The City Council meeting will be tele- vised live on Charter Cable Channel 2C and live streaming on www.slocitv.org. Lea Price, MMC Interim City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo April 22. 2016 2402041 17HE Newspaper of the Central Coast MBLNE 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, Califomi In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFrDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AD # 2408540 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. County of San Luis Obispo I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation, printed and published daily at the City of San Luis Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was published in the above-named newspaper and not in any supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; APRIL 23, 2016, that said newspaper was duly and regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on June 9, 1952, Case 419139 under the Government Code of the State of California. I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. UVyWW----- (SignatuWof Principal Clerk) DATED: APRIL 23, 2016 AD COST: $364.24 QTY OF i� Llm 4SI sPo SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - CORRECTION NOTICES The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend a oublic hearing on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Cali- fornia, relative to the following: 1. CORRECTION NOTICE - this item num- ber is being reheard at the May 3, 2016 City Council meeting. A public hearing to consider the following ?. Introduce an Ordinance entitled "An Or- dinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, Califomia amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) and the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a night club land use within the Business Park (B -P) Zone and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact (CODE -1316-2015).' 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolu- tion of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a night club use permit with off-site parking in the Business Park Zone at 855 Aerovista Place and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact as rep. resented in the staff report and attach- ments dated April 19, 2016 (CODE -1316- 2016)." Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office and or, line at www.slocity.org on Wednesday, April 27. 2016. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100 for more informa- tion. The City Council meeting will be tele- vised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slocitv.or-g. 2. CORRECTION NOTICE - this item was previously scheduled for May 3, 2016 and Is now scheduled for the Tuesday, May 17, 2015 City Council meeting, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Cali - A public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to adapt resolutions approving the following: 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of En- vironmental Impact for the project; and, A Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No. G. ER -TR 224.14) creating 77 foes and to 172 residential units at 1299 Orcutt W (a.k.a. "West Creek"; Application No. 7V-1769-2015) as conditioned therein. 3. Recommendations to be considered by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) during Final Design Review of the project as follows: a. Consider prohibiting a swimming pool as part of the project; and, b. Provide special attention to reducing heights of retaining walls in the final de- sign. Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office and on- line at www.slocity_org on Wednesday, May 11, 2016. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100 for more informa- tion. The City Council meeting will be tele- vised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slocitv.org. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limit. ed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo April 23,2016 2408540 Airport Area Specific Plan & 855 Aerovista Place CODE-1316-2015 Consideration of an Amendment the City’s Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to conditionally allow night club use within the Business Park zone and consider a use permit to allow a night club (live entertainment) and off-site parking at 855 Aerovista Place. May 3, 2016 Applicant: Auzco Developments Representative: Steve Pults and Hamish Marshall Recommendation 2 1.Introduce an Ordinance to amend Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s Zoning Regulations to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone in the Airport Area with a use permit; and 2.Adopt a Resolution amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone and approving a use permit for a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) and off-site parking for SLO Brew at 855 Aerovista and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Notification 3 A rehearing has been scheduled because of a defect in the noticing of the project. The minimum legal notification requirement for the project requires the City to send written notification to occupants and property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. Over 700 postcards were sent out in an expanded noticing which included all residential properties bounded by Tank Farm Road, the railroad tracks, the southern City limit line, and Broad Street. Project Description 4 1,250 square foot kitchen; 1,579 square foot restaurant dining area; 600 square foot outdoor dining area; and  3,047 square foot indoor entertainment venue. 6,496 square foot brewery production facility; 15,444 square foot lease space; and 1,746 square feet of office and mezzanine area. Aerovista Business Park is 9.94 acres. SLO Brew parcel is 3.47 acres. Overall 444 parking spaces are provided. 5 Project Description Project Analysis: Night Club Use Permit 6 Density: Events at the site will have no more than 600 people at any given time which is consistent with the density standards of the ALUP and the Airport Area Specific Plan. Security: The applicant has provided a detailed security plan that includes a queuing plan and details of the duties and responsibilities of all staff. Parking: As part of this use-permit, the applicant is requesting an off -site parking agreement to allow parking for the night club to expand off -site onto the neighboring properties of the Aerovista Business Park. Project Analysis: Night Club Use Permit 7 Traffic: The Initial Study identified that traffic could result in significant but mitigatable impacts related to the performance of circulation along Highway 227/Broad Street during the peak traffic hours of 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. Condition No. 23 requires that events shall not be permitted on Fridays before the hours of 7:30 p.m. Project Analysis: Text Amendment 8 ~800 ft. Airport Modifications to the Conditions of Approval 9 The indoor night club venue use shall include measures to reduce sound, including, but not limited to, insulated walls, acoustic panels on the ceiling and wall and specialized acoustic curtains. All concerts shall be held in the indoor night club venue. The doors and windows of the facility shall be closed during all events. Ambient music outdoors shall be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. Events on Fridays shall not begin before 7:30 p.m. Recommendation 10 1.Introduce an Ordinance to amend Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s Zoning Regulations to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone in the Airport Area with a use permit; and 2.Adopt a Resolution amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone and approving a use permit for a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) and off-site parking for SLO Brew at 855 Aerovista and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Questions 11 12 Margarita Area Specific Plan Airport Area Specific Plan Project Analysis: Night Club Use Permit 13 58 90 Project Analysis: Text Amendment 14 Project Analysis: Text Amendment 15 3. In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. In the BP zone, no minimum floor area is required for nightclubs. The required use permit process for both the C-S and BP zones shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 9. Nightclub uses proposed within the BP zone shall meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan, and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Project Analysis: Text Amendment 16 Night club – “a facility providing entertainment, examples of which include live or recorded music and/or dancing, comedy, disc jockeys, etc., which may also serve alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.” Business Park Zone (M.C. Chapter 17.49) – “is intended to provide for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations… Activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well. The City recognizes that businesses locating in areas designated Business Park often combine product development, promotion, manufacturing, and distribution at a single facility.” Zoning Regulations and the Airport Area Specific Plan Project Analysis: Text Amendment 17 Community Goal: “Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail trade.” Land Use Element: states that Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents. Entertainment facilities, such as night clubs, are to be in the Downtown. Accessory Use: The applicant is not proposing a night club as a primary use, but rather as an accessory to allowed uses (e.g. brewery and restaurant). General Plan: Land Use Element Project Description 1.Request for a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations and the AASP to allow a night club as an allowed use, with a use permit, in the BP zone. 2.Request for a night club (live entertainment) use permit for the SLO Brew Production Facility as accessory to their production facility. 18 Project Analysis: Night Club Use Permit 19 Noise: The applicant has provided a Noise Study performed by Mr. David Lord of 45dB.com. The study provided future sound level contours with a maximum of 600 persons, and amplified music and voice with no more than 90 dBA at 20 feet from the speakers. The sound level deceases from 90 dBA to 58 dBA before intersecting with sound produced from Broad Street/Highway 227. Project Description 20 101 100 146 97 40 Buena Vista Avenue SDU-1521-2015 Review of an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to approve a new single family residence in the R-1-S zone that incudes exceptions to the front yard building setback and height. May 3, 2016 Appellant: Naomi Hoffman Recommendation 2 Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a single family residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby allowing a single family residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue Project Background 3 Admin Review August 27, 2015 PC Review September 23, 2015 PC Denial October 28, 2015 PC Appeal October 29, 2015 CC Approval January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design Approved Use Permit Approved ARC Review March 7, 2016 ARC Appeal March 15, 2016 Design Appealed CC Approval May 3, 2016 Appeal Review Council Direction 4 The City Council provided direction to Staff and the ARC to review the project without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions, and address concerns including; Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, Appropriateness of the roof top deck, Visual appearance of the support columns, Landscaping plans, Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. Architectural Review Commission’s Action 5 ARC Hearing March 7, 2016 The ARC reviewed each directional item identified by the City Council public hearing held on January 19, 2016. The ARC did not find that the project was in conflict with any specific City standard and voted in agreement on each individual directional item including the proposed exceptions. The ARC voted 6:0, unanimously approving the proposed project. Appeal Filed Appeal Letter (Hoffman): On March 15, 2016, the appellant, Naomi Hoffman, filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the ARC’s action did not meet the City Council’s intent of the motion to deny “the currently proposed height and setback exceptions.” 6 Correspondence On May 2, 2016, the City received an additional letter from Naomi Hoffman that identified additional concerns related to the project that were not included in the original appeal. These concerns were evaluated and approved through the ARC hearing, these items are not the subject of the appeal hearing for the City Council. 7 Project Description 9 Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade, where 25 feet is normally allowed. Font yard setback reduction of 18.5 feet, where 20 feet is normally required. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review). Height and Street Setback Exceptions Exceptions: Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside Development Standards. Similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. 11 Front Yard Setback Exception 20 feet 18.5 feet The project was revised to eliminate the request for a side yard exception Several iteration of the project were attempted in order to eliminate the request for a height exception. Upon further evaluation of the project site it was determined that eliminating the height exception would result in greater impacts to the project site and the neighborhood. Height Exception Average Natural Grade 15% maximum driveway slope 25’ 8 foot minimum ceiling height 2.3’ Design Alternatives Some of the alternatives that were considered by the applicant and staff include; Allow a driveway slope greater than 15%, Street yard reduction of 10 feet, where 20 is normally required, Elimination of the requirement for a covered parking space in the R-1 zone, Separate buildings for the garage and the single family residence. 14 Evaluation As stated by the ARC Finding #11: “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.” 15 Summary The proposed project is a single family residence on a legal lot within the R-1 zone; The proposed exceptions are minor in nature; The proposed project has been designed to address development on the hillside; The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 16 Recommendation 17 Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a single family residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby allowing a single family residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue Design Alternatives Alternative #1: Allow a driveway slope greater than 15% Response: An increase in the allowable driveway slope would be in direct conflict with the Hillside Development Guidelines and would provide for unsafe circulation of a residence at this location 18 Design Alternatives Alternative #2: Street yard reduction of 10 feet, where 20 is normally required or eliminate the requirement for a covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Response: A Variance is required for a garage street yard setback less than 18.5 feet or the elimination of the covered parking space requirement. Unable to support a variance for a 10 foot front yard setback due life safety concerns of vehicles parking in the driveway that overhang the public right-of-way, where less detrimental options are available. Alternatives for the covered parking requirement could be in violation of the Front Yard Parking Standards that’s intent is to avoid parking lots in the R-1 zone. 19 Design Alternatives Alternative #3: Separate buildings for the garage and the single family residence. Response: Significantly more grading would be required for this alternative. The project would be significantly more visible from Highway 101. 20 Solar Study Winter Solstice 8:00 am 12:00 (noon) 3:00 pm Property to the North is zoned Conservation /Open Space Glass Reflection Project Description Project Description Project Description CO/S-5 Setback Exception 15’ 12’ Directional Item A: Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood Response: Located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with varying architectural styles The contemporary design includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside 27 Directional Item B: Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure 28 Response: Glass material is Low-e with dual glaze The residence is located 150 feet above and over 1,000 feet from Highway 101 Directional Item C: Appropriateness of the roof top deck Response: There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent properties are vacant. Closest residence is over 100 feet away and 30 feet above the proposed project. 29 Directional Item D: Visual appearance of the support columns Response: The project proposes support columns in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2015. 30 Directional Item D: Directional Item D: Directional Item E: Landscaping plans Response: Landscaping is not required to screen the property Design guidelines state that landscaping should act as a visual transition from development to open areas 33 Directional Item F: Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101 Response: The project site is located within city limits and is therefore outside of the State eligible scenic corridor. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101 34 ! I+ I 1 r y; .i f• DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAH LUIS O$ISM RECVD DY: FIHA3a CASHIER 01000399183 PAYOR: HOFFKAH TRUST TODAY'S DATE: 03/15/16 REGISTER TATE: 03/15/16 ME: 1069 DESCRIPTIO} OMIT COST ID -.APPEAL FEES $279,00 MISMLLAHEOUS REYE` E TOTAL DUE: $279.00 TEHDERB: $279.00 CHNU: 1.00 ChECv $279.00 REF HUM: 1486 i 1