HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #1 - ARCH-3216-2016 (1027 Nipomo) (2)Meeting Date: September 17, 2018
Item Number: 1
2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new 50-foot tall, five-story project that includes 3,392 square feet of
commercial/retail space, 67 hotel rooms, and a 35-space subterranean valet parking lot within the
Downtown Historic District.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1027 Nipomo BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3216-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the CHC, adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1)
denying the project, based on specific findings.
SITE DATA
Applicant Creekside Lofts, L.P.
Representative Scott Martin, RRM - Architect
Zoning C-D-H (Downtown Historic District)
General Plan General Retail
Net Site Area 16,940 square feet (0.39 acres)
Environmental
Status
Denial of the project is exempt from
environmental review per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4).
1.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a new 50-foot, five-story, 67-room hotel with
3,392 square feet of retail/commercial space, and a 35-space subterranean valet parking garage in the
Downtown Historic District. The site is currently used as a surface parking lot for the Creamery and
Ciopinot’s Restaurant.
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines, the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for compatible development in Historic
Districts, and applicable City policies and standards.
Packet Page 3
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 2
3.0 BACKGROUND
September 26, 2016: The CHC reviewed a four-story project that included 8,131 square-feet of
commercial/retail space, 23 residential units and a 7-room hotel. The CHC continued the item to a date
uncertain with direction to re-evaluate the height, scale, massing & detailing for greater consistency with
neighboring historic structures within the Downtown Historic District.
August 14, 2017: The CHC reviewed the new four-story mixed-use structure with 6,698 square feet of
retail/commercial space, a 47-room hotel, and 22-space subterranean parking garage in the Downtown
Historic District. The CHC made a motion to deny the project as designed based on the finding that the
proposed new building is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1
because the building is not compatible in scale and massing with the Downtown Historic District’s
structures. The CHC provided direction to reduce the height of the building to three-stories with the third
story setback (Attachment 4 - CHC Hearing Minutes 8-14-2017).
September 18, 2017: The ARC reviewed the 50-foot tall, four-story 47-room hotel project that included
6,698 square-feet of commercial/retail space and a 22-space subterranean parking garage and continued
the item with eleven (11) directional items and directed that the revised project be reviewed by the CHC
prior to being reviewed by the ARC again (Attachment 5, ARC Minutes 9-18-2017 and Attachment 3,
Previous Project Plans).
July 23, 2018: The CHC reviewed a new 50-foot tall, five-story project that includes 3,392 square feet
of commercial/retail space, 67 hotel rooms, and a subterranean valet parking lot within the Downtown
Historic District. The CHC made a recommendation that the ARC find the proposed new building
inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1 because the building is not
compatible in scale and massing with the adjacent Downtown Historic District’s structures. The CHC
provided specific direction to reduce the height of the building to the maximum height of the third story
(35 feet) of the project that was reviewed on August 14, 2017 and to setback the upper story and that any
changes to the project or revised project will require CHC review (Attachment 6 – Draft CHC Hearing
Minutes 7-23-2018).
4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
4.1 Site Information/Setting
The proposed project consists of a 16,940
(net) square-foot site located at 1027 Nipomo
Street within the Downtown Commercial
zone with a Historic Overlay (C-D-H). The
project site is currently used as a surface
parking lot for the adjacent properties (the
Creamery and Ciopinot’s) and accessed from
Nipomo Street. Neighboring buildings and
uses include the Master List Historic Golden
State Creamery (C-D-H) and residential (R-3-
H) to the west, Ciopinot’s restaurant (C-D-H)
to the south, the Soda Water Works building
(C-D-H-PD) to the north and the Children’s Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding structures
Residential Project
site
Soda
Water
Works
Children’s
Museum
Ciopinot’s
Restaurant
Creamery
Sandy’s
Liquor
Packet Page 4
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 3
Museum (PF) and Tonita’s Mexican restaurant (C-D-H) to the east (see Figure 1).
Table 1: Site information and setting
4.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new 50-foot, five-story structure within the Downtown Historic
District. The structure is blend of architectural styles with retail storefronts along the street and south
side of the first floor and the hotel units on the north side of the first floor and on all the upper floors.
The project includes:
• 3,392 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial space;
• 67 hotel rooms on all floors;
• 35-Space subterranean valet parking garage;
• 13 motorcycle parking spaces;
• 26 bicycle parking spaces (13 short-term and 13 long-term);
• A 20-foot wide pedestrian pathway/seating area between the neighboring buildings and the
project;
• Preservation of the creek walk along San Luis Creek;
• Proposed landscaping includes the removal of five parking lot trees and planting 10 new trees
(Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheets A2.2 and A2.3);
Zoning C-D-H
Site Size 20,731 s.f. – 3,791 s.f. (Creek setback) = 16,940 s.f.
Present Use & Development Surface Parking Lot
Topography Relatively Flat
Access Nipomo
Surrounding Use/Zoning
(see Figure 1)
North: C-D-H-PD
East: C-D-H and PF-H
South: C-D-H
West: C-D-H and R-3-H
Figure 2: East elevation facing Nipomo Street
Packet Page 5
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 4
Materials included in the project are: brick, fiber cement siding and trim, composite wood screening,
corrugated metal, aluminum storefronts, precast concrete cornices, bulkheads, metal railings, and metal
awnings (Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheet A11).
Table 2: Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard 20 feet 0 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 50 feet 50-75 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 53% 100%
Density Units (DU) 0 DU 36 DU per acre
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 35 373
Motorcycle 13 3
Bicycle 6 6
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted
2. Zoning Regulations
3. The applicant may pay an in-lieu fee in place of providing parking spaces
5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The ARC’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines, review how the applicant has responded to ARC’s previous direction and to consider the
CHC’s recommendation based on the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG) for compatible
development in the Downtown Historic District.
5.1 CHC Recommendation: On September 18, 2017 the ARC reviewed a previous building design for
the site and directed that the revised project be reviewed by the CHC prior to being reviewed by the
ARC. On July 23, 2018, the CHC reviewed a revised design for a new 50-foot tall, five-story project that
includes 3,392 square feet of commercial/retail space, 67 hotel rooms, and a subterranean valet parking
lot. Several members expressed that they liked the overall design changes that had been made to the
Figure 3: North elevation facing San Luis Creek
Packet Page 6
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 5
project, but also shared that the scale and massing of the project was incompatible with the neighborhood.
After discussion, the CHC recommended that the ARC find the proposed new building inconsistent with
the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.11 because the building is not compatible in
scale and massing with the adjacent Downtown Historic District’s structures. The CHC provided specific
direction to reduce the height of the building to a maximum of 35 feet and to set back the upper story.
Additionally, any changes to the project would require CHC review.
5.2 ARC Direction: On September 18, 2017 the ARC reviewed a previous building design for the site
and provided 11 directional items. The following is a list of those directions and how the applicant has
responded with the revised design.
1. Plate height of 14.75 feet for first story, and 10.5 feet at additional stories, is appropriate.
Plate height of the first floor varies between 9 and 19 feet with the introduction of a
mezzanine/second floor. The exterior design gives the appearance of a taller plate height with
the inclusion of the transom windows (Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheets A8 and A9).
All the upper floors have a plate height of 10 feet.
2. Additional setbacks should be provided on the third and fourth stories on all sides. The fourth
story along Nipomo Street should be significantly set back from the third story.
The third and fourth floors are setback along various sections of the north, east and west
elevations. The fourth floor includes a 28-foot setback along the south elevation and a 13-foot
setback from Nipomo Street.
3. Setbacks should be varied between the different stories.
Setbacks are varied between the stories and elevations.
4. Consider eliminating balconies on the north elevation.
No balconies have been eliminated along the north elevation (see Figure 3 above). The revised
design includes 3 hotel rooms on the first floor that have outdoor patio access and 12 upper floor
balconies that all face the creek. The project also includes one common deck on the third floor
facing Nipomo Street and two common decks on the fourth floor (one of which faces the creek).
The previous design included only retail/commercial space on the first floor, 9 balconies along
the north elevation and one common deck for guests that faced Nipomo Street (see Figure 4).
1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic
character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior
materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or
imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a n ew building is historic.
Packet Page 7
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 6
5. Define an architectural style/genre for the project.
The architectural style of the structure, including materials and colors, has been revised. The
project has been redesigned to incorporate architectural elements that are commonly found in
the Downtown Historic District such as a flat roof design with a parapet, projecting cornice with
dentil detailing, use of transom windows above the storefronts, masonry walls with contrasting
bulkheads and the use of awnings and canopies.
The revised project has a similar form, but has added more detailing in areas such as cornices,
window fenestration and trim, brick detailing and concrete surrounds and bulkheads (see
Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheets A16 & A17). Previously the project proposed to use
a stucco finish on the structure. The revised plans now call for the use of fiber cement siding
which is used horizontally in the project, similar to the nearby Soda Water Works building (see
Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheet A13). Overall the colors proposed for the revised
project are lighter with darker colors being used for trim and other architectural elements.
Previously shown fabric awnings along the south side of the structure have been replaced with
metal awnings. Corrugated metal is also used as one of the exterior materials of the elevator
tower. This ties into corrugated metal that used as one of the materials within the adjacent
Creamery buildings.
Figure 5: Front elevation views of (left) previous plans and (right) revised plans
Figure 4: North elevation of the previous design
Packet Page 8
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 7
6. Existing color palette is too dark, use darker colors sparingly.
As noted in direction #5 above, the project uses lighter colors and darker colors are used for trim
and other architectural elements (see Figure 4 above).
7. Ensure the project is at the appropriate scale with surrounding one and two-story buildings.
The revised project is consistent with the C-D zone development standards and within the 50-
foot maximum height and meets the required setbacks (see Table 2, Project Statistics). As
discussed in Section 5.1 above, the CHC reviewed the project and recommended the ARC find
the revised building is not compatible in scale and massing with the adjacent Downtown Historic
District’s structures.
8. Increase building variety at the pedestrian level along the south-paseo elevation.
The applicant is proposing a new façade along the south paseo. The revised façade introduces
new materials such as brick, horizontal siding and the use of metal canopies in place of fabric
awnings (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: (Top) Previous south elevation; (Bottom) Revised south elevation
Packet Page 9
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 8
9. Consider reducing building at narrowest point on the creek side to increase width of creek walk
at the narrowest point.
The project has reduced the width of the building nearest to the Creamery by 2 feet.
10. Provide pedestrian perspective drawings for view of building from across the street and
illustrate how the project looks within the block, especially from Higuera Street.
The revised plans include two renderings of the project as shown on sheets A13 and A14
(Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans) and Figures 7 and 8 below.
11. Increase setbacks along the creekside elevation of the projects. Consider setting back the second
and third floor and setting the fourth floor even further back.
Setbacks have been increased at the northeast corner of the fourth floor by 28 feet and through
Figure 8: View of the project from Monterey Street and Nipomo Street
Figure 7: Rendering of the project looking north along Nipomo Street
Packet Page 10
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 9
the use of balconies along the creekside elevation. Figure 9 shows some of the setbacks provided.
5.3 Parking: The revised plans include a subterranean, valet parking garage as part of the project. As
proposed, the parking garage would hold 35 vehicles. The applicant has included a Parking Management
Plan that describes how the valet parking would work (Attachment 7). Any additional parking spaces
required for the project are proposed to be met by paying the in-lieu fees for projects located within the
Downtown Core.
The parking plan for the project is not fully resolved with staff. The valet loading zone cannot be located
in front of the building because it is the location of a City bus stop. Staff is supportive of a loading zone
located north along Nipomo Street (just before the proposed building) that would be available for any
type of loading/unloading activities, but would not be exclusively used for valet services. Additionally,
overnight parking of hotel guests within City parking structures has not been confirmed and currently
the City has very limited overnight parking available.
5.3 Sign program: The applicant has included a sign program as part of the project. Sign programs are
an effective way to establish ongoing requirements to ensure signage is coordinated and compatible with
the development and surrounding area in projects with multiple tenants and buildings. For the most part
the applicant’s proposed sign program appears appropriate in scale, placement, number, and type. Staff
recommends that any sign program in the Downtown expressly prohibit internally illuminated cabinet
signs and internally illuminated channel letters. The placement and type of signs appears appropriate for
the project in terms of providing an appropriate level of visibility at the pedestrian scale in the downtown
setting (Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans, Sheets A19 & A20).
6.0 CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted their final design for the site. The project was previously reviewed by both
the CHC and the ARC with each advisory body providing direction on revisions that should be
incorporated into the final design. The ARC’s most recent review in September 2017 included specific
direction that the CHC review project modifications. In their most recent review, CHC found the revised
Figure 9: Section illustration showing the proposed structure from Nipomo Street
Packet Page 11
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 10
final design failed to respond to concerns over massing, height, and scale, and repeated their
recommendation that the ARC find the project inconsistent with historic guidelines for compatible
development in historic districts (HPPG 3.2.1). The CHC’s findings are especially important since they
are the advisory body charged by the General Plan2 to review projects for compatibility in historic
districts and the ARC’s previous direction specifically called for the CHC to review the revised project
and include changes that “ensure the project is at the appropriate scale with surrounding one and two-
story buildings” (directional item #7). Based on the CHC’s findings, staff is recommending that the
ARC deny the final project design based on the findings outlined in the Draft Resolution (Attachment
1).
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review because the project is recommended for denial (CEQA
guidelines Section 15061).
If the ARC provides guidance to staff that the project should be continued, it is important to note that a
CEQA categorical exemption from environmental review for the project would not apply. This is
because the CHC has recommended that the current design of the project, due to the scale, massing and
height, is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.
In order to qualify for an infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15332, the project must be consistent
with applicable general plan and zoning regulations. The City’s Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) of the General Plan outlines specific policies and programs that require development be
consistent with the historic preservations policies. As noted above, the CHC is charged with reviewing
new developments and their consistency to the COSE based on the Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The CHC has determined, via a recommendation to the ARC, that the project is inconsistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1. In addition, section 15300.2 of the CEQA
guidelines states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource cannot use a categorical exemption and an initial study of environmental review must
be completed. The CHC members are considered experts in their field and have provided comments that
identify that there may be some impact to the Downtown Historic District and therefore, further
environmental review is required per CEQA. If the project was modified as recommended by the CHC
in a way that could be determined to be compatible with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,
potentially an infill-exemption could be deemed as the appropriate CEQA determination.
8.0 ALTERNATIVE
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Revised Project Plans
3. Previous Project Plans
2 Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.1.A(7) Cultural Heritage Committee. The City’s Cultural Heritage
Committee will review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservation guidelines or
standards.
Packet Page 12
ARCH-3216-2016
1027 Nipomo
Page 11
4. CHC Hearing Minutes 8-14-2017
5. ARC Minutes 9-18-2017
6. Draft CHC Hearing Minutes 7-23-2018
7. Parking Management Plan
Packet Page 13
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION DENYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 50-FOOT TALL, FIVE-
STORY PROJECT WITH 3,392 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE,
67 HOTEL ROOMS, AND A 35-SPACE SUBTERRANEAN VALET PARKING LOT
WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
1027 NIPOMO STREET (ARCH-3216-2016)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on September 26, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-3216-2016,
Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on August 14, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-3216-2016,
Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; and
WHEREAS, 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, on September 18, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-
3216-2016, Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on July 23, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-3216-2016,
Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; and
WHEREAS, 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, on September 17, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-
3216-2016, Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; 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 staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing 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 denies the project
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 14
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-18
1027 Nipomo, ARCH-3216-2016
Page 2
(ARCH-3216-2016), based on the following findings:
1. The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project and found the project inconsistent with
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1 because the building is not
compatible in scale and massing with the adjacent structures in Downtown Historic District.
2. Since the Cultural Heritage Committee has found the proposed project is inconsistent with
Historic Preservation Guidelines, the project is inconsistent with Conservation Open Space
Element Policy 3.3.5, which states that in evaluating new public or private development, the
City shall identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character.
3. The Cultural Heritage Committee is charged by Conservation Open Space Element Program
3.6.1.A(7) to review new developments to determine consistency with cultural resource
preservation guidelines or standards.
4. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Section
4.2.B.(1) because the new building does not fit within the context and vertical scale of existing
development and the building is significantly taller than the adjacent buildings and does not
provide appropriate visual transitions.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review
because the project is recommended for denial (CEQA guidelines Section 15061).
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby denies the project
(ARCH-3216-2016) based on the provided findings.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of September, 2018.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 15
THE HOTEL AT THE CREAMERYPROJECT STATISTICSPARKINGPROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT DESCRIPTIONSHEET INDEXOWNER: CREEKSIDE LOFTS, L.P. P.O. BOX 12910 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: DAMIEN MAVIS PHONE: (805) 781-3133 EMAIL: DMAVIS@COVELOP.NETARCHITECT: RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S.HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: SCOTT MARTIN PHONE: (805) 543-1794 EMAIL: SAMARTIN@RRMDESIGN GROUPCIVIL ENGINEER: ABOVE GRADE ENGINEERING 1304 BROAD STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: SCOTT STOKES PHONE: (805) 545-5115 EMAIL: SCOTT@ABOVEGRADEENGINEERING.COMLANDSCAPE: SUMMERS|MURPHY & PARTNERS, INC. 34197 PACIFIC COAST HWY, SUITE 200 DANA POINT, CA 92629 CONTACT: JIM BURROWS PHONE: (949) 443-1631 EMAIL: JBURROWS@SMPINC.NETSURVEYOR: MBS LAND SURVEYS, INC. 3563 SUELDO STREET, UNIT Q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: MICHAEL B. STANTON PHONE: (805) 594-1960 EMAIL: MIKE@MBSLANDSURVEYS.COMTHE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A 4 STORY HOTEL AND RETAIL BUILDING. THE GROUND FLOOR WILLL INCLUDE RETAIL SPACE, RESTAURANT, AND HOTEL LOBBY ALONG WITH HOTEL ROOMS. ADDITIONAL HOTEL ROOMS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE MEZZANINE LEVEL AS WELL AS ON THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH FLOORS. THE STREET SIDE, AS WELL AS THE PASEO SIDE ARE ENHANCED WITH PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENTRIES AND INVITING STOREFRONT SYSTEMS.PROJECT ADDRESS:1027 NIPOMO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN NUMBERS: 002-402-046 ZONING: C-DEXISTING USE: PARKING LOTPROPOSED USE: RETAIL/HOTEL/ RESTAURANT/PARKINGPROPOSED OCCUPANCY: M, R-1, A-2, S-2NET SITE AREA: 0.389 ACRES (16,940 SF)EXISTING GROSS SITE AREA 0.476 ACRES (20,731 SF)GROSS CREEK SITE AREA 0.087 ACRES (-3,791 SF)MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 100% (16,940 SF)PROPOSED COVERAGE.: 53% (8,974 SF)MAX. F.A.R: 3.0(50,820 SF)(FOR BLDGS UP TO 50'-0" TALL PROPOSED F.A.R: 2.2 (37,469 SF/16,940 SF) LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,871 SFIMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 8,979 SFMAX HEIGHT ALLOWED: 50 FT. MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT: 50 FT.CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE IA (GARAGE, 1ST, MEZZANINE) TYPE VA (2ND, 3RD, AND 4TH LEVELS)AUTO PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED:GENERAL RETAIL(2000 SF OR LESS @ 1/300 SF)PROPOSED: 1,080 SF/500 = 2.5 PER C-D ZONING2.16 SPACESRESTAURANT - GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE(@ 1/350 GSF PER C-D ZONING)PROPOSED: 2,312 SF/350 = 6.61 6.61 SPACESHOTEL - (@1/ROOM + 1 (FOR RES. MANAGER):67 UNITS/1= 67 (*.5) PER C-D ZONING33.5 SPACESTOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED:42.27 ROUNDS DOWN TO:42 SPACESBICYCLE PARKING REDUCTION- (1 CAR SPACE REDUCTION PER 5 ADDITIONALBICYCLE PARKING SPACES UP TO A 10% REDUCTION): 10 SHORT TERM +10 LONG TERM SPACES= 4 CAR SPACE REDUCTION (4 SPACES)PARKING REQUIRED: (42 - 4) 38 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED: 36 SPACESPERSPECTIVE VIEW - East Corner of Building on Nipomo StreetMOTORCYCLE PARKINGMOTORCYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 2 SPACES(1/20 AUTOSPACES = 38/20)MOTORCYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 2 SPACESBICYCLE PARKINGBICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED: 6 SPACES(C-D ZONE - 15% OF AUTO SPACES 38*0.15)SHORT TERM SPACES PROVIDED: 13 SPACES(MIN SHORT TERM SPACE - 50%)LONG TERM SPACES PROVIDED: 13 SPACES(MIN LONG TERM SPACE - 40%)TOTAL PROVIDED: 26 SPACESSITENIPO
M
O
ZONING MAPHIGUERAT1 TITLE SHEETA1 PROJECT CONTEXT IMAGESA2 PROJECTS IN THE WORKSA3 SITE AIR PHOTOA4 EXISTING SITE SURVEYA5 PROPOSED SITE PLANA6 FLOOR PLANSA7 UPPER FLOOR PLANSA8 ELEVATIONSA9 ELEVATIONSA10 SITE SECTIONSA11 COLOR & MATERIALSA12 ENTRY TO PASEOA13 PERSPECTIVEA14 PERSPECTIVEA15 AERIAL PHOTOA16 DETAIL VIGNETTESA17 DETAIL VIGNETTESA18 SHADING PLANA19 PROPOSED SIGNSC1 PRELIMINARY CIVIL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANC2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANL1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLANVICINITY MAPAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17T1TITLE SHEETATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 16
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A1THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYPROJECT CONTEXT IMAGESATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 17
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A2THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYPROJECTS IN THE WORKSATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 18
PROPOSED PARKINGSTRUCTUREMONTEREYPLACECREAMERYSOUTH SIDE 18PROJECT SITEADJACENTRESIDENTIALAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A3THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSITE AIR PHOTOATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 19
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A4THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERY0208040402010SCALE: 1'-0" = 40’-0" (12x18 sheet)SCALE: 1'-0" = 20’-0" (24X36 sheet)EXISTING SITE SURVEYATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 20
CREAMERYBUILDING 2TAQUERIABUILDINGCIOPINOTBUILDINGCREAMERYBUILDING 3SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEKNIPOMO STREETAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A5THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERY0208040402010SCALE: 1'-0" = 40’-0" (12x18 sheet)SCALE: 1'-0" = 20’-0" (24X36 sheet)PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSEDBUILDINGATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 21
$'$9$167$// $'$ 6)6725$*(6)(/(9$7250$&+,1(5220 6)(/0RWRUF\OH0
67$1'$5'67$//
5
0RWRUF\FOH
23(1725(7$,/%(/2:23(1725(67%$5%(/2:23(1725$03%(/2:23(172/2%%<%(/2:/$5*(68,7(+.+.
6)75$6+6)5(67$85$17 6)+27(//2%%< 6)5(7$,/$&&(6672&5((.+27(/5$03
6).,7&+(16)2)),&(%2+6):20(165(6752206)0(165(672206+2577(50%,.(3$5.,1*63$&(66)6725$*(6)&2/'/21*7(50%,.(63$&(6725$*(&/26(7 9(57,&$/<67$&.(' \UG&RQWDLQHU\UG&RQWDLQHU&DUW&DUW&DUW&DUW&DUW&DUW
FLOOR PLANSGROUND FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)0MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1.5August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A6THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSCALE: 3/64” = 1’-0" (12X18 sheet)SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0" (24X36 sheet)320816ATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 22
+.
/$5*(68,7(+.
'(&.'(&./$5*(68,7(35,9$7('(&.+.
UPPER FLOOR PLANSSECOND FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2THIRD FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3FOURTH FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)4August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A7THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSCALE: 3/64” = 1’-0" (12X18 sheet)SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0" (24X36 sheet)32816ATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 23
SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)2EAST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)1HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 191'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 193.2' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (191' + 193') / 2 = 192.1'MAX HEIGHT= 50'-0"192.1' + (50)' = 242.1'GOSHICIOPINOT193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREEN193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREENAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A8THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0" (12X18 sheet)04816SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0" (24X36 sheet)ELEVATIONSATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 24
NORTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)2WEST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)1HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 191'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 193.2' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (191' + 193') / 2 = 192.1'MAX HEIGHT= 50'-0"192.1' + (50)' = 242.1'193.2' FFGROUND LEVEL191' FFLOWER GROUND LEVEL193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREEN193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREENAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A9THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0" (12X18 sheet)04816SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0" (24X36 sheet)ELEVATIONSATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 25
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0" (24X36 sheet)0816 32NIPOMO SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)1PASEO SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEET)2RETAILRESTAURANTHOTEL HOTELHOTEL HOTELHOTEL HOTELPARKINGPARKINGGOSHICIOPINOTPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLNIPOMO ST.RESTAURANTPARKINGHOTELLOBBYRESTROOMSMEZZANINEHOTELHOTELHOTELHOTELPASEOHOTELHOTELHOTEL HOTELHOTELHOTELHOTELHOTELHOTELHOTELHOTEL HOTELHOTEL HOTELHOTEL HOTELHOTELHOTEL193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREEN191' FFLOWER GROUND LEVELCREEK SETBACKHOTELHOTEL193' FF212 FF232 FFGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORMAX HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE = 192.1'222 FFTHIRD FLOOR181' FFPARKING GARAGE202 FFMEZZANINE242.1' FFMAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 50' +10' = 60'-0"= 252.1'ELEV. PENTHOUSE & MECH. SCREENAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A10THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSITE SECTIONSATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 26
DFDFCORRUGATED METAL SIDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD SCREENFIBERON IPEWOOD LOOK METAL SOFFITHUNTER DOUGLAS RED RIVER PECANPAINTED FIBER CEMENTSW 7071 GRAY SCREENPAINTED FIBER CEMENT TRIMSW 7066 GRAY MATTERSTHIN BRICK VENEERGENERAL SHALE TOWNSQUAREUPPER WINDOWSMILGARD CLEAR ANODIZEDPRECAST COLUMN BASE FACECDI GS60 SMOKEPRECAST SURROUNDCDI GRAYMETAL CANOPYBRONZE COLOR FINISHPAINTED FIBER CEMENT SIDINGSW 7757 HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITEUPPER WINDOWSMILGARD BLACK ALUMINUMANODIZED STOREFRONTBLACKMETAL CANOPYDARK STEEL FINISHPAINTED FIBER CEMENTSW 9162 AFRICAN GRAYAABCNDJFPAINTED FIBER CEMENT TRIMSW 7076 CYBERSPACEBEKHMLOPIBGCEDFHJIGLKMOPNAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A11THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYCOLOR & MATERIALSATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 27
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A12THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYENTRY TO PASEOATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 28
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A13THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYPERSPECTIVEAT CORNER OF MONTEREY & NIPOMOATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 29
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A14THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYPERSPECTIVEFROM NIPOMO STREETATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 30
PROPOSED PARKINGSTRUCTUREMONTEREYPLACECREAMERYPROPOSEDSAN LUIS SQUARESOUTH SIDE 18August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A15THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYAERIAL PHOTOATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 31
GREEN WALL DETAIL HOTEL LOBBY AWNING DETAIL "TOWER" DETAIL corrugated metal wall panelilluminated hotel entry canopyGHFRUDWLYHPHWDOVRIÀWJRRVHQHFNZDOOOLJKWÀ[WXUHVvalet parking garage entranceaccent trelliswood screening elementguest patio wallgreen wallaccent metal railingZRRGVRIÀWDQGPHWDOIDVFLDwood screening elementmetal sign bracketilluminated hotel signageAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A16THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYDETAIL VIGNETTESATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 32
NIPOMO STREET AND PASEO BUILDING CORNER ARTICULATION DETAILPARAPET AND AWNING DETAIL PARAPET AND CORNICE DETAIL metal sign/public artprecast concrete cornicecorrugated metal awning with metal bracketswall sconceprecast concrete parapetÀEHUFHPHQWSDQHODUWLFXODWLRQwith metal accent panels PLONSDLOOLJKWÀ[WXUHVmetal awning with FRUUXJDWHGPHWDOVRIÀWbrick detailingJRRVHQHFNZDOOOLJKWÀ[WXUHprecast concrete parapet capwindow surroundsprecast concrete cornice with decorative dentilstransom windowsoldier course above windowbrick detailingdecorative metal bracket blade signprecast concrete bandZDOOVFRQFHJRRVHQHFNVLJQOLJKWÀ[WXUHVconcrete surroundsconcrete bulkheadAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A17THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYDETAIL VIGNETTESATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 33
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A18THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYSHADING PLANat Noon on Dec 21stATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 34
hotel sign 2 (6'x3' = 18sfretail sign 3 (15'x3' = 45sf)hotel sign 1 (6'x3' = 18sf)restaurant sign 1 (16'x2' = 32sf)public art sign 1 (12'x6' = 72sf)retail sign 2 (10'x3' = 30sf)retail sign 1 (10'x3' = 30sf)restaurant sign 2 (16x2' = 32sf)hotel sign 3 (7'x4' = 28sf)restaurant sign 3 (16x2' = 32sf)RETAILAugust 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17A19THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERYPROPOSED SIGNSProposed Sign StatisticsTenant 1 (HOTEL)Raised Channel Signs 2 = 36 S.F.Wall Blade Signs 1 = 28 S.F.Cumulative Area of Sign: 64 S.F. < 200 S.F.Tenant 2 (RESTAURANT)Raised Channel Signs 3 = 96 S.F.Cumulative Area of Sign: 96 S.F. < 200 S.F.Tenant 3 (RETAILRaised Channel Signs 2 = 60 S.F.Wall Signs 1 = 45 S.F.Cumulative Area of Sign: 105 S.F. < 200 S.F.PUBLIC ART SIGNCumulative Area of 1 Sign: 72 S.F. < no req. min.ATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 35
(E)FF=190.40(E)FF=190.35NIPOMOSTREET(193.2 FS)MATCH (E)193.0 FS(192.9 FS)MATCH (E)190.30 FS190.30FS190.10TGFF=193.0SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK(E) BUILDING(NOT A PART)2%MAX(191.00 FS)(E) DOOR(E) FF=191.02%MAX5%MAX(193.0 FS)MATCH (E)190.50 TG190.20TG(190.80 FS)MATCH (E)(192.00 FS)(E) PATIO192.90FS190.10 FS(190.94 FS)(E) PATIO190.00 TW(189.7 ES)2%MAX2%MAX(190.25 TG)EXIST. DIFF=193.0192.80 TC192.30 FL193.0 FS190.30 FS(190.35 FS)MATCH (E)2%MAX191.0FS193.0FS193.00 TW192.8 FS190.10 TG192.85TG190.30 FS193.0 FS192.85TG192.75 TG193.0 FS192.75FS193.0 FS192.85TG190.40 FS190.10FS2%
MAX193.00 TW193.00 FS193.0 FS193.0 FS192.80 TC192.20 FL192.9 FS192.80 TC192.25 FL2%MAX8%MAX192.72FS(190.82 FS)MATCH (E)190.80 FS191.80FS191.76FS190.76FS192.80FS192.80FS190.80 FS5%MAX(189.53 ES)MATCH (E)189.50TG(190.35 FS)MATCH (E)190.55 FS5%MAX190.40 FS2%MAX2%
MAX
190.70 FS192.90 FS2%
MAX5%MAX192.75TG2%MAX190.25 FLSTORM DRAININLET W/ SUMP(E) BUILDINGMATCH (E) BACKOF SIDEWALK (TYP)(E) 8" STORMDRAIN PIPETO CREEK(N) HOTEL BUILDINGMATCH (E) BACKOF SIDEWALK (TYP)(E) BUILDINGREMOVE & REPLACE CURB,GUTTER & SIDEWALKTREE WELL &TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)RETAININGWALL (TYP)LANDSCAPEAREA (TYP)PAVERS (TYP)PAVERS (TYP)NEW TRASH RAMP(E) CREEKFLOWLINETREE WELL &TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)NEW DRIVEWAY RAMPPROTECT (E)TREES (TYP)BUILDING SETBACKDRAIN INLET W/ATRIUM GRATETREATMENTBASIN (TYP)PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-1( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.5101010200August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERY0CC18040201020 40SCALE: 1'-0" = 40’-0" (12x18 sheet)SCALE: 1'-0" = 20’-0" (24X36 sheet)PRELIMINARY CIVIL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 36
(E)FF=190.5(E)FF=190.40(E)FF=190.35NIPOMOSTREETSAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK(E) BUILDING(NOT A PART)(E) FF=191.0STORM DRAINBASIN W/ SUMPNEW 4" FIRE WATERSERVICE LINECONNECT TOEXISTING 8" STORMDRAIN PIPE(N) HOTEL BUILDINGPROTECT EXISTINGWATER SERVICE(E) BUILDINGSTORM 8" DRAINPIPE (TYP)NEW 4" SEWER LATERALNEW 2" 'DOMESTIC'WATER METER &SERVICE LATERALRAINWATERTREATMENTBASIN (TYP)TREE WELL &TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)(E) BUILDING(NOT A PART)(E) BUILDING(NOT A PART)NEW 8" STORMDRAIN PIPE(E) SEWER LINE(E) WATER LINEPROTECT(E) GAS LINENEW GAS LINE(E) GAS LINEPROTECT EXISTINGCATCH BASINPROTECT EXISTINGCATCH BASIN(E) CREEKFLOWLINEEXISTING DRAIN INLETNEW 1" 'COMMERCIAL'WATER METER &SERVICE LATERALRAINWATERTREATMENTBASINFIRE RISERROOMTREE WELL &TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)BUILDING SETBACKDRAIN INLET W/ATRIUM GRATETREE WELL &TREATMENTBASIN (TYP)REMOVE EXISTING TRENCH DRAINSTORM DRAINCLEANOUTSTORM DRAINCLEANOUTNEW 8" STORMDRAIN PIPECONNECTTO EXISTINGSTORM DRAINPROTECT EXISTINGTRENCH DRAINPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC-2UTILITY PLAN GENERAL NOTES:1. EXISTING SEWER MAIN IN NIPOMO STREET IS A 30-INCH MAIN AND MAY BE 20 FEET DEEP. A DOUBLE BARRELED 12" SEWERSIPHON IS PRESENT UPSTREAM OF THE SITE UNDER THE CREEK.2. PRIVATELY OWNED SUB-METERS MAY BE PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT UPON APPROVAL OF THEUTILITIES DIRECTOR OR HER/HIS DEIGNEE. THE CCR'S FOR THE PROPERTY ASSCOIATION SHALL REQUIRE THAT THESUB-METERS BE READ BY THE ASSOCIATION AND EACH CONDOMINIUM BILLED ACCORDING TO WATER USE.3. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS MAY ONLY BE DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.5101010200August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERY0CC28040201020 40SCALE: 1'-0" = 40’-0" (12x18 sheet)SCALE: 1'-0" = 20’-0" (24X36 sheet)PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 37
August 30, 2018#1160-01-CO17THE HOTELAT THE CREAMERY04010 20SCALE: 1”-0" = 20’-0" (24X36 sheet)SCALE: 1'-0" = 40’-0" (12x18 sheet)L1LANDSCAPE SITE PLANATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 38
THE VESPER HOTEL AT THE CREAMERY1027 NIPOMO STREET . SAN LUIS OBISPO . CALIFORNIA17.0616bracketATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 39
The paseo on the south side of the building transitions from the public right-of-way to an activated pedestrian level with generous storefront bays, supported by a street level storefront façade, further enhanced by the strong rhythm of windows, balconies, and material transitions on the upper floors. This variation of masses is purposefully subtle visually, relying on shade, shadow, and pattern to create a visual and spatial interest. The vertical circulation tower provides relief in the building mass and is clad in horizontal siding reminiscent of the clapboard employed at the nearby Soda Works building. A rich espresso brown color is the backdrop for extensive growing vines and narrow windows that provide a little whimsy to the functional element. The paseo’s brick walking surface retains the look and feel of the existing brick walkways on site, with stair and ramp transitions to navigate changes in elevation, while flanked with landscape planters and peppered with in-ground tree wells.The west paseo reintroduces the brick from the Nipomo elevation in a more industrial expression, referencing the historic use of the site in a two-story volume adjacent to the terra cotta brick Creamery exterior wall.Facing San Luis Creek, the north elevation focuses on providing a simpler composition to reinforce the peaceful setting adjacent to the creek. Broad balconies are nestled into a deep setback rather than cantilevering over the creek setback line and are purposely oriented toward the east to lessen residential neighborhood overlook impacts.Thoughtful material transitions and attention to detail are key design strategies for the project, and vary throughout by base material, elevation exposure, and overall height. A set of common components are interpreted and expressed depending on the condition at hand including transoms, bulkheads, lintels, window and door trim, railings, window patterning, awnings, and cornices.The Vesper Hotel at the Creamery is a four-story hotel and retail building at 1027 Nipomo Street, currently a parking lot serving the neighboring Creamery Marketplace. The project includes a subterranean garage accessed from Nipomo Street on the northeast corner of the building. The ground level provides high ceiling spaces typical of single story retail and hotel lobbies . Above the ground floor there are three stories of hotel rooms for a total of forty-seven guest rooms plus a patio on the 4th floor. Historic downtown hotel buildings, including the Anderson Hotel (5-stories) and the Wineman Hotel (3-stories), also feature tall ground floor levels for the lobby and retail spaces, topped with multiple residentially scaled hotel floors. The Vesper Hotel has some similarities but through the unique design creates the feel of a cluster of smaller historic buildings providing a boutique experience to compliment the eclectic mix of buildings and uses in the area.The Vesper Hotel site is surrounded by Downtown Commercially (C-D) zoned properties on 3 sides and a natural area on the forth side (San Luis Creek). Beyond the creek is a combination of C-D zoned commercial and Medium-High density residentially zoned properties (R-3). Due to unique site characteristics, the Vesper Hotel design provides an opportunity to create four distinctly different elevations, each with pedestrian access. The building frontage is on Nipomo Street (east), the south and west sides are wide pedestrian paseos providing a connection to the Creamery and beyond, and on the north, a walkway along San Luis Creek with its dense foliage. Properties in the Downtown Commercial zone are encouraged to maximize density by allowing 100% lot coverage with no setback requirements; the Vesper Hotel is designed at 58.2% lot coverage, providing for generous pedestrian circulation around the building and a strong connection to the neighboring businesses.From an architectural standpoint, the Nipomo Street elevation is composed of three main masses, conceptualized as a classic downtown brick two-story set next to a deep colored hand-troweled cement plaster three-story building and topped with a quiet and dynamic grouping of upper level planes fashioned in nuanced two-tone plaster. The brick two-story allows for an appropriate transition from the existing neighboring single-story restaurant (1051 Nipomo) both in material and in height. The building design also includes a significant 4th story setback from the street and paseo providing a hotel patio space. This intentionally balanced composition of materials, colors, and wall planes provides for an appearance of a cluster of multiple buildings that would have been typical in the historic growth pattern of the Downtown Historic District.DESIGN DESCRIPTION1bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 40
ARCHITECTbracket architecture officep.o. box 1810san luis obispo, CA 93406contact: bryan ridley805.704.0535br@bracketao.comOWNERcreekside lofts, L.P.p.o. box 12910san luis obispo, ca 93401contact: damien mavis805.781.3133dmavis@covelop.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTsummers|murphy & partners, inc34197 pacific coast highway, suite 200dana point, ca 92629contact: jim burrows 949.443.1631 jburrows@smpinc.netsite statisticsaddress: 1027 nipomo streetassessor parcel number 002-402-046net site area (16,940 sf) 0.389 acresexisting gross site area (20,731 sf) 0.476 acresgross creek site area (-3,791 sf) 0.087 acreszoning C-D (downtown-commercial)existing use parking lotproposed useretail/hotel/parkingproposed occupancyM mercantileR-1 hotelS-2 parkingconstruction type3 stories type VA1 story type IB1 story type IB below gradefire sprinklersyes (NFPA-13)number of stories4 stories above grade plane1 story below grade planeallowed building height50'-0"(60'-0" at elevator shaft per SLOMC 17.16.040)proposed building height without lofts49'-10"floor area ratio (FAR)allowed for building up to 50' = 3.00proposed 45,596 sf/16,980 sf = 2.69lot coverageallowed 100%proposed9,827 sf/16,980 sf = 58.2%creek bank area, existing1,083 sf (6.5%)landscape area925 sf (5.4%)impervious area14,972 sf (88.1%)building areassee code analysisreidential densityallowed densityCD zone36 du/acre x 0.390 acres = 14.04 duproposed densityhotel room47 units x 0.00 du = 0.00 dutotal density proposed0 units0.0 duparking statisticsparking requiredhotel (47 x 0.50 spaces/unit) 23.5 spacescommercial retail (6,698 sf X 1 SPACE 500 S.F. ) 13.4 spacestotal parking required 37 spacesparking provided 22 spacesthe balance between required and provided parking spaces of 15 spaces will be mitigated by paying parking in-lieu fees.bicycle parking required15% of parking spaces: 6 bicyclesbicycle parking providedlong term spaces (40%): 3 bicyclesshort term spaces (50%): 3 bicyclestotal bicycle parking provided: 6 bicyclesCIVIL ENGINEERabove grade engineering1304 broad streetsan luis obispo, ca 93401contact: scott stokes 805.545.5115 scott@abovegradeengineering.comall work shall be in conformance with the 2016 editions of the california building codes basedon the 2015 IBC, 2015 IRC, 2015 UMC, 2015 UPC, and the 2014 NEC. all codes referencedshall be california editions as amended by the state and local ordinance and are as follows:2016 california building code (CBC).2016 california mechanical code (CMC).2016 california plumbing code (CPC).2016 california fire code (CFC).2016 california electrical code (CEC).2016 california state energy conservation stds. (title 24).2016 california residential code (CRC).2016 california green building code (CGBC).2016 building standards administrative code.national fire protection association codes (NFPA).san luis obispo municipal code (SLOMC).maximum area of openings based on fire separation(CBC table 705.8)fire separation distance protected allowable area0' to less than 3' yes/no not permitted3' to less than 5' no 15%3' to less than 5' yes 15%5' to less than 10' no 25%5' to less than 10' yes 25%10' to less than 15'* no 45%10' to less than 15'* yes 45%15' to less than 20'* no 75%15' to less than 20'* yes 75%20' or greater yes/no no limitfire-resistance rating requirements for building elements:exterior bearing walls: 1-hrinterior walls within a single occupancy: 1-hrinterior walls between hotel rooms: 1-hrstair exit enclosure walls: 1-hrfloor/clg assemblies between hotel rooms: 1-hrfloor/clg assembly between type-IA and type-VA 3-hroccupancy groups R-1, M, S-2separated occupancies yes, including CBC 510.4 parking beneath group Rtype of construction 4 stories of type VAover 1 story type IB above grade planeover 1 story type IB below grade planefire sprinklers YES (NFPA-13)building height allowed 50'-0" (above avg natural grade)building height proposed 49'-10" parapet, 53''-0" elevator shaftnumber of stories allowed (R-1): 4 storiesnumber of stories proposed (R-1): 4 storiesnumber of stories allowed (M): 2 storiesnumber of stories proposed (M): 1 storynumber of stories allowed (S-2): 2 storiesnumber of stories proposed S-2): 1 storybuilding area by storybasementS-2 parking 8,674 sfS-2 circulation 420 sfS-2 storage 317 sftotal 9,411 sffirst storyR-1 lobby/circulation 1,702 sfM retail 5,779 sfM core + back-of-house 845 sfS-2 parking ramp 501 sftotal 8,827 sfsecond storyR-1 hotel rooms7,295 sfR-1 lobby/circulation1,587 sfR-1 covered decks467 sftotal 9,349 sfthird storyR-1 hotel rooms7,294 sfR-1 lobby/circulation1,585 sfR-1 covered decks305 sftotal 9,184 sffourth storyR-1 hotel rooms6,680 sfR-1 lobby/circulation1,085 sfR-1 covered decks209 sfR-1 courtyard + patio851 sftotal 8,825 sfBUILDING AREA BY OCCUPANCYR-1 occupancy29,060 sfM occupancy6,624 sfS-2 occupancy9,912 sftotal building area45,596 sfcode analysisproject directoryproject statisticscode notesSURVEYORMBS land surveys, inc3563 sueldo street, unit Qsan luis obispo, ca 93401contact: michael b. stanton 805.594.1960 mike@mbslandsurveys.com2bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 41
COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES - CHAPTER 4SECTION GUIDELINEYES NO NOTES4.2.AStreet orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas.XThe building is located at the back of sidewalk for 60% of the frontage, and setback 2’ for 40% of the frontage to articulate the massing and to provide better line-of-sight clearance from the driveway ramp. The setback is part of a broader massing strategy for downtown buildings.4.2.BHeight, scale. Multi-story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upperfloor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability.XProject is four stories tall which includes a mix of uses. Retail and hotel support at the ground floor with hotel at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors. Approximately 50% of the 4th floor hotel rooms feature sleeping lofts.4.2.BMulti-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge.XProject provides setbacks above the 2nd floor or 3rd floor as part of a broader massing strategy for downtown buildings that favors a collage of masses and setbacks rather than banded terracing which lacks precedent.4.2.B.1The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and provide human scale and proportion.XThe nearest building is single-story with a tall parapet and made of brick. The primary adjacent mass of the new building is two-stories in height and aso composed of brick for compatibility. Transitions of a single-story among neighboring buildings is common downtown. Where the height exceeds two-stories it is set back from the right-of-way and separated by a 20’ wide pedestrian paseo, including the significant 4th floor step back that also provides for a hotel patio.4.2.B.1.aIn no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-wayXCondition met. Right-of-way is 60’ wide. Project height is less than 50’ at the back of sidewalk.4.2.B.1.bNew buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions.XSee 4.2.B.14.2.B.1.cFor new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings.XThte Creamery Marketplace is a listetd Historic Resource, but it is important to note that its significance is not tied to its archittecture but rather to its importance to the historict economy and dairy industry. See 4.2.B.14.2.B.1.dThe project provides upper story setbacks from the front building façade along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building’s frontageXNo portions of the building exceed 50’ at the front building façade, therefore no setback is required to follow Figure 4-3. Setbacks are provided, however, see 4.2.B.4.2.B.2New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.NAPublicly owned gathering places do not feature in the near context of the subject property.4.2.B.3New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21st.NAThe subject property is not located on any of the mentioned streets, nor does it shade them.4.2.B.4Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses.XThe sleeping loft portion of the project exceeds the 50’ height limit. This is a minor increase in overall height and is stepped back substantially from the building face to limit or eliminate visbility. The roof of the sleeping lofts coincides with the height of the elevator.4.2.B.5.aUtility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the building, or in a sub-grade vault.XProject will comply as the technical design is advanced.4.2.B.5.bLocation of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department requirements.XProject will comply as the technical design is advanced.4.2.B.5.cMinimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the project frontage.XSidewalks are ~10’ in width existing and to remain. 8’ clearance is maintained at all obstructions including the large growth street trees4.2.B.5.dService access to the building for loading and maintenance functions should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.XA trash ramp is provided at the frontage which accounts for <8% on the facing street (Nipmo Street).4.2.CFaçade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement existing structures, without copying their architectural style.XThe existing context is a blend of buildings from several different decades and stylistic eras. The new building provides storefronts, windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, and cornice treatments compatible with the surroundings.4.2.C.1Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be avoided.XThe various roofs are flat, and step with the varied massing. Facades are essentially flat and are expressed by different width planes that setback and change materials per 4.2.B.4.d (larger buildings >50’ wide).4.2.C.2Proportions in relation to context. Buildings should be designed with consideration of the characteristic proportions (relationship of height to width) of existing adjacent facades, as well as the rhythm, proportion, and spacing of their existing door and window openings.XThe facade is divided into smaller “buildings” of 45’ and 30’ wide to follow widths common to the Downtown. Significant stepbacks and material transitions at the 2nd and the 3rd floors to further reinforce the compositions compatible proportions.GUIDELINE MATRIX3bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 42
4.2.C.3Storefront rhythm. A new building facade that is proposed to be much “wider” than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street.XThe building facades are divided into bays, framed by vertical column-like elements to emphasize windows, doors, and bulkheads. The spacing is consistent over three bays and an adjacent two bays.4.2.C.4Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the building façade, and should be confined to the area framed by the support piers and the lintel above, consistent with classic “Main Street” architecture.XStorefronts are framed by vertical column-like elements to reinforce individual bay proportions.4.2.C.5Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic.XWall surfaces at the macro scale are varied in material and at the micro scale are divided by horizontal lintels, bands, and cornices.4.2.C.5.aDividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass.XStorefront windows and hotel room windows are divided into smaller framed panes of glass.4.2.C.5.bConstructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads.XHuman scale materials are employed at the bulkhead including tile and cast-stone or pre-cast concrete.4.2.C.5.cProviding traditional recessed entries.XEntries along the Nipomo frontage and the paseo are recessed.4.2.C.5.dCareful sizing, placement and overall design of signage.XSignage is carefully sized and placed with an emphasis on pedestrian scaled elements at the street corner and the site entrance.4.2.C.6Doorways. Doorways should be recessed.XDoorways, as part of the entries are recessed from the sidewalk.4.2.C.7Bulkheads. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly called a “bulkhead,” of 18 to 36 inches in height. Bulkheads should be designed as prominent and visible elements of building facades, and should be treated sensitively to ensure compatibility with the overall appearance of the building. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep rich hues, either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns; dark or light marble panels; and pre-cast concrete.XBulkheads are provided at the base of the storefront window systems, either of pre-cast concrete, cast stone, or tile.4.2.DMaterials and architectural details. While downtown buildings have a variety of materials and architectural details, several consistent themes in these aspects of design in the downtown have helped to define its distinctive character.XSee following subsections that describe in more detail the downtown themes.4.2.D.1The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building’s exterior design is complicated, with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building’s overall character.XIntegral color smooth troweled plaster, tile, precast concretet, and brick are all used in thte project. Painted clapboard siding is used as well, referencing the nearby Soda Works Building.4.2.D.1Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings.XThe adjacent building on Nipomo Street is not historically significant but does feature a strong use of brick as its primary material. Brick is used on the project’s adjacent 2-story volume for compatibility and transition.The following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within the downtown. -Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred) -Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete -New or used face-brick -Ceramic tiles (bulkhead or cornice) -Clapboard (where appropriate) -Glass block (transom) -Clear Glass windowsX Used (smooth troweled) Used (bulkhead and site/sign walls) Used Used Used (interpretive application as natural clear sealed cedar) Transoms are not glass block, rather obscured glass UsedGUIDELINE MATRIX4bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 43
The following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are discouraged: -Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass -Windows with false divisions -Vinyl and aluminum siding -Painted or baked enamel metal awnings -Rough “Spanish lace” stucco finish -Plywood siding -Corrugated sheet metal -Corrugated fiberglass -Split face concrete block -Exposed concrete block without integral colorX Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used Not Used4.2.D.2Storefront remodeling often covers original decorative details, or retains them only as visual “leftovers.” Existing details should not be wasted in remodeling efforts. If enough remain, they can be restored as part of the original design. If only a few remain, they can be incorporated as design features in a new storefront. In either case, the design of changes to a façade should grow out of the remaining traditional details and create a harmonious background that emphasizes those details.NAThis is a new building.4.2.D.3Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have details and ornament appropriate to the building wall materials.XBronze anodized aluminum frame windows and doors with substantial frames are appropriate and compatible with the smooth troweled cement plaster and applied brick. Storefronts vary in detail to avoid an overly homogenous appearance.4.2.D.4Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the ground floors of downtown buildings are important in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor windows adjacent to sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive blank walls do not.XThe ground floor windows along Nipomo Street and the paseo are large and allow for strong visibility to pedestrians.4.2.D.5Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the storefront.XAwnings are employed regularly along the paseo. Because of the substantial size of the two street tress along Nipomo, and the proposed transom windows, awnings would be incompatible.4.2.D.6Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into exterior building design to add a degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs.XThe project provides expressive wall mounted light fixtures, various types of balconies and railings, expressed metalwork at wall caps and cornices, cast concrete window trim, and various bulkheads. These materials and details are a curated variety of materials to generatet a consistent but varied richness.4.2.EPublic spaces, plazas and courtyards. Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches and fountains, and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk.XA pedestrian paseo is a major feature of this project and its relationship to the broader context of the Creamery.GUIDELINE MATRIX5bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 44
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES - CHAPTER 5.2.2SECTION GUIDELINEYES NO NOTESSETTING FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICSABuildings located at back of sidewalk with zero street and side setbacks.XThe building is located at the back of sidewalk for 60% of the frontage, and setback 2’ for 40% of the frontage to articulate the massing and to provide better line-of-sight clearance from the driveway ramp. Side setbacks are provided for the creek and the public paseo.BFinish floors at grade.XFinish floors are at grade.CRecessed front entries are oriented toward the street.XEntries are recessed and oriented toward the street.DFront facades oriented toward the street.XThe front facade is parallel to and oriented toward Nipomo Street.ETrees placed at regular intervals along the street.XExisting street tress are placed at regular intervals and new trees are proposed for the pedestrian paseo.ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERAOne or two stories (occasionally three)XThe building totals four stories which is consistent with development standards for the Commercial Downtown zone and with other new and historic hotel buildings Downtown such as the Anderson Hotel.BFlat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet.XThe various roofs are all flat, the majority of which have a parapet.CWide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as dentils, brackets and molding.XSignificant cornices are provided on the project, varying in material and detail. Classical details are used on the projecting cornice for the three-story mass at the north east corner. DFirst floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing the street. In multi-stotry structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width.XFirst floor storefront windows are horizontally oriented facing the street and the pedestrian paseos. Upper floor windows are vertically oriented and symmetrically arranged where appropriate to the building function.EStructures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy” building forms.XThe building massing is composed of simple rectangular forms.FMasonry or smooth stucco wall siding.XBoth brick masonry and smooth stucco are used extensively.GContrasting bulkheads along base of street facade.XBulkheads of precast concrete are provided at the street facade.HUse of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies.XAwnings are used along the pedestrian paseos. They are not used at the Nipomo Street facade because of the substantial size of the street tress and the broad and deep recessed storefronts that offer much of the shade and weather protection afforded by an awning.IUse of transom windows above storefronts.XStorefronts facing the sidewalk employ transom windowGUIDELINE MATRIX6bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 45
1
(
51
:
01
(
01
:
01
:
51
(
0TO REMOVETO REMAINNIPOMO STREETSAN LUIS CREEKGOSHICIOPINOTTAQUERIA1. TOP OF BANK LINE2. CREEK EASEMENT LINE3. CREEK WALK FENCE4. BUILDING LIMIT LINE5. BRICK CREEK WALK6. TREE TO REMAIN (GREEN)7. TREE TO BE REMOVED (SHADED GRAY)8. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED9. RESTAURANT PATIO (NOT A PART)10. CURBS TO BE REMOVED11. BUS STOP TO BE RELOCATED12. BRICK WALK TO BE REMOVED13. DRIVEWAY TO BE ABANDONED AND REPLACED WITH SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER PER CITY STANDARDS14. ON-STREET PARKING TO BE CONVERTED TO BUS STOP15. TRASH AREA TO BE REMOVED16. LANDSCAPE AREA, SIGNS, AND PARKING LIGHT STANDARDS TO BE REMOVEDTREESA. 7” BRISBANE BOXB. 14” RED IRONBARKC. 16” RED IRONBARKD. 12” AMERICAN SWEETGUME. 9” EVERGREEN PEARF. 6” BRISBANE BOXG. 36” FICUSH. 42” FICUSI. 18” VICTORIA BOX99852137E 616105127D7C7B7A1511146I13137F6H6G1” = 20’-0”EXISTING SITE PLAN54217bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 46
NIPOMO STREETSAN LUIS CREEKGOSHICIOPINOTTAQUERIA1. TOP OF BANK LINE2. CREEK EASEMENT LINE3. (E) CREEK WALK FENCE4. BUILDING LIMIT LINE5. (E) BRICK CREEK WALK6. (N) RETAINING WALL7. (N) PEDESTRIAN COURT8. (N) PEDESTRIAN PASEO9. (E) RESTAURANT OUTDOOR SEATING10. (N) LANDSCAPE AREA11. (N) PROPOSED BUS STOP LOCATION12. (N) SHORT TERM PARKING ZONE13. (N) DRIVEWAY TO SUB-T PARKING14. 8’ MIN CLEAR AT SIDEWALK15. (E)TREE TO REMAIN16. (N) TREE17. (N) BIKE LOCKERS18. (N) TRASH RAMP19. REQUIRED EGRESS PATH FROM CREAMERY20. (N) PEDESTRIAN RAMP21. (N) FIRE RISER22. (N) SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING (3)20 9 9165321156224102110516 7 2081919131412111” = 20’-0”PROPOSED SITE PLAN218bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 47
W\S
W\S
1/16” = 1’-0”SUBTERRANEAN PARKING PLANUTILITY-STORAGEAND LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING (3)PARKINGDRIVEWAY RAMPELEVSTAIRSTAIR9bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 48
1/16” = 1’-0”FIRST FLOOR PLANDRIVEWAY RAMPSTORAGEBACK OF HOUSEMEN’SWOMEN’SUTILITYRETAILELEVHOTEL LOBBYTRASHRETAILRETAILSTAIRSTAIR10bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 49
1/16” = 1’-0”2ND FLOOR PLANELEVSTAIRSTAIRHOTEL ROOMPATIOHOTEL ROOMCORRIDORBALCONY11bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 50
1/16” = 1’-0”3RD FLOOR PLANELEVSTAIRSTAIRHOTEL ROOMHOTEL ROOMCORRIDORBALCONY12bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 51
1/16” = 1’-0”4TH FLOOR PLANHOTEL PATIOBALCONYBALCONYCOURTYARDSTAIRELEVSTAIRHOTEL ROOMHOTEL ROOM13bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 52
1/16” = 1’-0”ROOF PLANOPENCOURTYARD BELOW14bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 53
KLJKSRLQW
VHFRQGIORRUSRGLXP
WKLUGIORRU
IRXUWKIORRUDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
ORZSRLQW
ILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
KHLJKWOLPLW
EDVHPHQWVODE
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRU
WRSRIURRI
WRSRISDUDSHW
W\S1/16” = 1’-0”TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION ARETAILSOUTHPASEO1051 NIPOMO STSANLUISCREEKDRIVEWAYRAMPHOTELLOBBYHOTELHOTELHOTELPATIOPARKING15bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 54
KLJKSRLQW
VHFRQGIORRUSRGLXP
WKLUGIORRU
IRXUWKIORRUDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
ORZSRLQW
ILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
KHLJKWOLPLW
WRSRIURRI
EDVHPHQWVODE
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRU
WRSRIURRI
1/16” = 1’-0”TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION BRETAILSOUTHPASEO1051 NIPOMO STSANLUISCREEKHOTELHOTELHOTELCOURTYARDSTAIRSPARKING16bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 55
KLJKSRLQW
ILUVWIORRUORZHUVODEVHFRQGIORRUSRGLXP
WKLUGIORRU
IRXUWKIORRUDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
ORZSRLQW
ILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
KHLJKWOLPLW
WRSRIURRI
EDVHPHQWVODE
WRSRISDUDSHWWRSRIURRI
1/16” = 1’-0”LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTIONRETAIL RETAIL RETAILRETAILPARKINGHOTELHOTELHOTELPARKINGDRIVEWAY RAMPBEYONDNIPOMO STREET(E) FICUSSTREET TREES17bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 56
NIPOMO STREET FRONTAGE18bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 57
PASEO ENTRANCE AT NIPOMO STREET19bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 58
ENTRANCE TO CREEKWALKSOUTH PEDESTRIAN PASEOGARAGE ENTRANCE + STOREFRONTNIPOMO STREET FRONTAGE20bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 59
SOUTH PEDESTRIAN PASEOPASEO ENTRANCE AT NIPOMO STREETSOUTH PEDESTRIAN PASEO AT STAIR TOWERNIPOMO STREET SIDEWALK21bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 60
SAN LUIS CREEK FRONTAGEWEST + SOUTH PASEOWEST + SOUTH PASEOWEST PEDESTRIAN PASEO22bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 61
SAN LUIS CREEK AT NIPOMO STREET23bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 62
ILUVWIORRUORZHUVODEDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
KHLJKWOLPLW
WRSRISDUDSHWILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRU
ILUVWIORRUORZHUVODEDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
KHLJKWOLPLW
WRSRISDUDSHWILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRU
WRSRIURRISOUTH ELEVATION (PASEO)EAST ELEVATION (NIPOMO STREET)1/16” = 1’-0”1/16” = 1’-0”24bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 63
ILUVWIORRUORZHUVODEDYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
KHLJKWOLPLW
DYHUDJHQDWXUDOJUDGH
ILUVWIORRUXSSHUVODE
KHLJKWOLPLW
WRSRIURRI
WRSRISDUDSHW
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRUILUVWIORRUORZHUVODE
WRSRIURRIDWHOHYDWRUNORTH ELEVATION (CREEK)WEST ELEVATION (PASEO)1/16” = 1’-0”1/16” = 1’-0”25bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 64
2131113 141512475896101. BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOWS2. TRIM, CORNICE, AND STEEL ELEMENTSSW 6990 ‘CAVIAR’3. FINE SAND TEXTURED STUCCOSW 7042 ‘SHOJI WHITE’4. FINE SAND TEXTURED STUCCOSW 9171 ‘FELTED WOOL’5. ACCENT- AWNINGS, SIGNSSW 6341 ‘RED CENT’6. FINE SAND TEXTURED STUCCOSW 9149 ‘INKY BLUE’7. PAINTED WOOD STOREFRONTSW 6782 ‘CRUISING’8. ACCENT- PLANTERS, SIGNSSW 9048 ‘SURFIN’9. SMOOTH FIBER-CEMENT CLAPBOARD SIDINGSW 2808 ‘ROCKWOOD DARK BROWN’10. CLEAR WESTERN RED CEDAR EAVE11. PRECAST CONCRETE TRIM12. THIN BRICKMCNEAR ‘SANDMOLD SERIES, FLAGSTAFF’13. STAINLESS STEEL (SIGNS)14. SMOOTH TROWELED PLASTERDAVIS INTEGRAL PIGMENT ‘SILVERSMOKE’15. DECORATIVE TILE BULKEADS, TBD26bracketThe Vesper Hotel at the Creamery1027 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA17.0616Cultural Heritage Committee ApplicationATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 65
ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 66
ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 67
ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 68
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WITH MAPPED FIRM AE FLOODZONESV-1REDUCED TO 1” = 40’ SCALEATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 69
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, August 14, 2017
Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, August
14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Thom Brajkovich, Sandy Baer,
Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee (arrived at 6:42 p.m.), and Chair James Papp.
Absent: Committee Member Craig Kincaid
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Jennifer Hooper.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2017
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 5-0-2, to approve the minutes of the Cultural
Heritage Committee meeting of June 26, 2017, as amended:
Correct Committee Member Matteson’s name spelling, to remove additional “n.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 1027 Nipomo Street. ARCH-3216-2016: Review of a new four-story, mixed-use
development proposed in the Downtown Historic District that includes 6,698 square-feet of
commercial/retail space, 47 hotel rooms, and a 22-space subterranean parking garage (with a
categorical exemption from environmental review (Section 15332, Infill Development); C-D-
H zone; Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 70
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 14, 2017 Page 2
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee Member inquiries.
Applicant Representative, Architect Bryan Ridley, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
Applicant, Damien Mavis, made additional comments and responded to Committee Member
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Steve Snyder, nearby resident noted his concerns with the scale of the project since it is right
across the creek from residences.
Mark Johnson nearby resident, noted his opposition to the project based on the height of the
project since a 4-story project is proposed near residences. He stated the project is too big
and culturally incomptatible.
Dave Hanning stated that there was no mention of the distances to residences on Dana Street
and that the project is incompatible with the surroundings. He stated that staff needs to be
more considerate of people who live downtown.
End of Public Comment--
Committee Members discussed the project.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED 4-2-1 to recommend the ARC deny the project based on the
finding that the proposed new buiding is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines Section 3.2.1 because the building is not compatible in scale and massing with the
Downtown Historic District’s structures and provided direction that the project reduce the height
of the building to three-stories with the third story setback.
The Committee recessed at 7:10 p.m.
2. 1171 Pismo Street. ARCH-0817-2017: Review of proposed rehabilitation and additions to
a Contributing historic property, including removal of previous additions, demolition of a
detached garage, and new proposed additions and exterior modifications associated with
rehabilitation plans, with a categorical exemption from environmental review (Section
15301, Existing Facilities); R-2-H zone; Gene and Sally Kruger, applicants. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented an in-depth staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 71
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, September 18, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
September 18, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Brian Rolph, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair
Angela Soll, and Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Allen Root
Staff: Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording
Secretary Jennifer Hooper.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
David Brodie.
End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 1027 Nipomo Street; ARCH-3216-2016: Provide design review direction for a new four-
story project proposed in the Downtown Historic District that includes 6,698 square-feet of
commercial/retail space, 47 hotel rooms, and a 22-space subterranean parking garage; C-D-H
zone; Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant.
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented an in-depth staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant Representative, Architect Bryan Ridley, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant, Damien Mavis, provided additional comments and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 72
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of September 18, 2017 Page 2
Public Comments:
Dave Hannings, Mark Johnson, David Brodie, Micah Smith
End of Public Comment--
Direction Provided:
1. Plate height of 14.75 feet for first story, and 10.5 feet at additional stories, is appropriate.
2. Additional setbacks should be provided on the third and fourth stories on all sides. The
fourth story along Nipomo Street should be significantly set back from the third story.
3. Setbacks should be varied between the different stories.
4. Consider eliminating balconies on the north elevation.
5. Define an architectural style/genre for the project.
6. Existing color palette is too dark, use darker colors sparingly.
7. Ensure the project is at the appropriate scale with surrounding one and two-story
buildings.
8. Increase building variety at the pedestrian level along the south-paseo elevation.
9. Consider reducing building at narrowest point on the creek side to increase width of creek
walk at the narrowest point.
10. Provide pedestrian perspective drawings for view of building from across the street and
illustrate how the project looks within the block, especially from Higuera Street.
11. Increase setbacks along the creekside elevation of the projects. Consider setting back the
second and third floor and setting the fourth floor even further back.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 11/13/2017
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 73
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 23, 2018 Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, July 23, 2018
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Glen Matteson, Damon Haydu,
Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp
Absent: Committee Member Craig Kincaid
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell, and Deputy City Clerk Heather Goodwin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Special Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June
27, 2018:
By consensus, the Cultural Heritage Committee approved the Minutes of the Special Cultural
Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2018, with the following amendment to the spelling of
Rodriguez on packet page 3:
• Change Rodriquez to Rodriguez
PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Wynn
--End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. 1027 Nipomo Street. Case #: ARCH-3216-2016; Review of a new 50-foot tall, five-story
project that includes 3,392 square feet of commercial/retail space, 67 hotel rooms, and a
subterranean valet parking lot within the Downtown Historic District with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Creekside Lofts LP, Applicant
DRAFTATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 74
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 23, 2018 Page 2
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant Representative, Scott Martin, RRM Design Group, provided an overview of the
project.
Chair Papp disclosed that he had ex-parte communication with Mr. Rob Rossi, a member of
the applicant team.
Public Comment
Mark Johnson
Dave Hannings
Mary Neal
Diane Duenow
James Lopes
Victoria Wood
Ursula Bishop
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 5-1-1, (VICE CHAIR LARRABEE VOTING
NO, COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID ABSENT) to recommend the Architectural Review
Commission find the project inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Section 3.2.1 because the building is not compatible in scale and massing with the adjacent
Downtown Historic District’s structures and provided specific direction to reduce the overall
height of the building to the height of the third story of the project reviewed on August 14, 2017,
setback the upper story, and any changes to the project will require CHC review.
RECESS
The Committee recessed at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. All Committee members
present.
3. 868 Upham Street. Case #: HIST-1621-2018; Review of a Historical Preservation Agreement
(Mills Act Program) for the Master List Harry E. Lyman House, with a categorical exemption
from environmental review; R-2 Zone; Maggie and Jason Browning, applicants.
Associate Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant Representatives, Jason Browning, provided an overview of the project.
Public Comment
None
--End of Public Comment-- DRAFTATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 75
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 76
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 77
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 78
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 79
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 80
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 81