HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-14ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Hearing Room
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
January 6, 2014 Monday 5:00 p.m
ROLL CALL: Commrs. Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony
Palazzo, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, and
Chairperson — Position Vacant
ELECTION: Election of Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of December 16, 2013. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the
public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
1. 774 and 776 Palm Street. ARC 131-13; Continued design review of a proposed
classroom building and accessory staff office for Old Mission School and CEQA
exemption (Class 32, Infill Development Projects); R-4-H zone; Tina Ballantyne, Old
Mission School, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
2. 1241 Laurel Lane. ARC-C 156-13; Conceptual architectural review of a mixed -use
project; C-N zone; Laurel Lane Investments, LLC, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
Architectural Review Commission
Page 2
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Brian Leveille
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
city of
san Luis
Meeting Date: January 6, 2014
Item Number: 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued review of a proposed classroom building and accessory staff office.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 774 & 776 Palm St. BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166)C94
E-mail: bleveille@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 131-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner PR.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final
approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission
School Principal
Representative
Jim Duffy, Architect
Zoning
R-4-H (High -Density Residential
with Historical Preservation
Overlay Zone)
General Plan
High -Density Residential
Site Area
9,232 square feet (.21 acre)
Environmental
Exempt from environmental
Status
review under Class 32 (Section
15332), Infill Development
Projects.
F.1031
The applicant has submitted revised plans for a classroom building and administrative office in
response to directional items from the Architectural Review Commission meeting of November
18, 2013. For more background on previous review, and more detail on the project site and
project description, please reference the staff report which was prepared for the previous
Architectural Review Commission meeting (Attachment 6).
On November 18, 2013, the ARC reviewed the applicant's project plans (Attachment 4, ARC
meeting minutes) and continued the item to a date uncertain with six directional items
(Attachment 5, ARC follow up letter). The applicant has revised plans and is requesting final
design approval.
ARC 131-13; 774 & 776 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION DIRECTION
The Commission continued the item with the following direction:
1. Soften the east elevation and roof edge of the classroom building and add
articulation to the west side of the administration building.
2. Break up east wall with offsets (horizontal and vertical) such as adding pilasters.
3. Revise plans to include the currently shown roof -mounted equipment so that it is
either internal to building or ground mounted.
4. Move the computer/media room farther from property line.
5. Recommend that the school meet with neighbors to resolve parking and pick/up
drop off issues.
6. Expand notices for future hearings to 500 feet from the project site.
2.0 EVALUATION
1. Soften the east elevation and roof edge of the classroom building and add
articulation to the west side of the administration building.
2. Break up east wall with offsets (horizontal and vertical) such as adding pilasters.
Staff Analysis (1 & 2 above): The applicant has removed the parapet features which projected
above the tile capped parapet line of the classroom building. Pilasters have also been added along
the east elevation. The applicant has stated that more significant revisions such as adding
horizontal jogs in the wall line are not feasible due to limited site area, and the expense of the
caisson and grade beam foundation system. The applicant has responded that the east wall is
largely not visible since a six foot wall will be constructed along with a six foot setback and there
are neighboring buildings which effectively block views of this elevation. The reduction in
parapet height and offsetting the computer room at the rear of the building by 12 inches also
breaks up the east elevation (Figure 2, below).
ARC 131-13; 774 & 776 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 3
Projecting parapets removed
Previous design
Mechanical equipment
Computer/medji
moved away from east wall
and setback
_
Figure 2. East elevation showing previous and revised design
An architectural parapet has been added to the west side of the administration building which
adds additional articulation (Figure 3, below).
L1
T C
j�]*
Revised design —, Previous design _ -
Figure 3. West elevation of administration huilding
ARC 131-13; 774 & 776 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 4
3. Revise plans to include the currently shown roof -mounted equipment so that it is
either internal to building or ground mounter.
Staff Analvsis• Current plans show that the roof -mounted equipment on the administration
building will be screened by an architectural parapet which has been incorporated into the west
fagade (Figure 3, above). On the classroom building, the rooftop equipment has been moved
away from the east fagade and is located over non -classroom spaces to minimize the
transmission of noise from vibration through the structure.
The project site and classroom building have limited space for locating mechanical equipment
internal to the structure or on the ground. Community Design Guidelines require roof -mounted
equipment to be screened by a building parapet or other effective roof design'. Together with
building parapets, the enclosures shown on plans appears to be compatible with building
architecture and will sufficiently screen the mechanical equipment from public streets and
adjacent properties. Staff has added a condition of approval that requires sectional views and
line -of -sight diagrams to demonstrate mechanical equipment will be adequately screened.
4. Move the computer/media room farther from property line.
Staff Analysis: The computer/media room has been moved an additional 12 inches to the west
and the overall height has been reduced by 24 inches.
5. Recommend that the school meet with neighbors to resolve parking and pickup
drop off issues.
Staff Analysis: The applicant previously met with neighbors to discuss these issues prior to the
ARC's previous review on November 18t6. The applicant has responded that they are currently
attempting to set up a meeting with the neighbors and the City's Parking Services Manager to
discuss parking mitigation measures.
6. Expand notices forfuture hearings to 500feet from the project site.
Staff Analysis: The project will be noticed 500 feet from the project site and will be noticed 500
feet from the Old Mission School campus on Broad Street,
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under the Infill Development Categorical
Exemption (Class 32).
' Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.D.
ARC 131-13; 774 & 776 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 5
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as
conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Applicant project statement & responses to directional items
3. Reduced size project plans
4. Meeting minutes, ARC meeting of November 18, 2013
5. ARC follow up letter, dated November 27, 2013
6. November 18, 2013, ARC staff report (without resolution)
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO.00-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
FOR THE PALM STREET ANNEX PROJECT
AT 772 & 774 PALM STREET (R-4 ZONE; ARC 13143)
WHEREAS; the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering project plans for final approval in
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 6, 2014, pursuant to
an application filed by Tina Ballantyne, applicant, for the purpose of considering ARC 131-13, a
proposal to construct a new classroom building and staff office at 774 & 776 Palm Street; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering project plans for final approval in
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 2013, and
continued review of the project with direction; and,
WHEREAS, The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project plans in Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October, 28, 2013, and
recommended final approval of the project based on findings of conformance with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, An Administrative Use Permit hearing was held in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October, 18, 2013, for review of the use
permit proposal to establish the school use and off -site parking and was approved subject to final
architectural review approval.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings.
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 grants final
approval to the project (ARC 131-13), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding
development.
2. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the City's Community Design
Guidelines for Residential Projects.
4. 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 High -Density
Residential Zoning designation, and the project is consistent with relevant zoning and
Resolution No. ARC-####-I4 page 2
772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13
development regulations and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire,
and safety codes.
5. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development, of
the CEQA Guidelines since the project meets the following criteria:
a. The project is consistent with its general plan designation and applicable general plan
policies.
b. The project site is within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 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. 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.
Significant changes to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural
and/or exiting issues shall return to the ARC for review and approval. Significant changes
to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural and/or exiting issues shall
return to the ARC for review and approval.
2. The color board for the project presented at the meeting was supported by the
Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are
not a sprayed -on product and have a smooth troweled finish. A sample of the finish shall
be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved
palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to
issuance of a building permit. Building colors, materials, and all exterior details shall be
shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings.
3. The proposed use shall remain fully consistent with the project description and proposed
daily operations described in application project submittals including the ages and grades
of students and numbers of students and staff described in the proposal and approved in
the associated Administrative Use Permit approval #A131-13. The operations shall also
remain consistent with minor modifications to the use description which the applicant has
agreed to in association with the withdrawal of appeal AP -PC 131-13.
Resolution No. ARC-####-I4 Page 3
772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, written Director approval of the proposed
consolidated approach as described in Chapter 5 of the Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines is required. The report shall contain all required information and
required components of Chapter 5.
5. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include a line -of -sight diagram
and sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers
and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and
other roof features will adequately screen them.
6. The locations of all wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall -mounted lighting shall
complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a
graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut -sheets shall be 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 the
requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23
of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service
area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that
"Lenses of exterior wall -mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after
installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive
glare."
7. The existing driveway approach shall be abandoned in favor of curb, gutter, and sidewalk
per City Engineering Standards. The building plan submittal shall show and label the
adjoining metered parking spaces and shall show additional metered parking in the area
of the abandoned approach. The plan may require the relocation of one or more spaces
and meters to provide a complying parallel parking layout.
8. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Displaced sidewalk in the
area of the street trees shall be replaced as necessary. A tree grate shall be included
around the existing street trees to remain if a grate could reasonably fit around the
existing tree and crown. Sidewalk area removed or replaced shall be constructed back in
Mission Style Sidewalk per City Engineering Standards.
9. The proposed landscape plan for the area in front of the Administration Building should
consider at least one street tree per City Engineering Standard #8010 to provide
additional street tree coverage in the gap between the existing sidewalk trees.
10. The building plan submittal for demolition, grading, and new construction shall include
pertinent tree preservation notes for the existing on -site trees to remain.
11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The
drainage plan shall consider all existing historic upslope and off -site drainage that is
tributary to this site. The proposed drainage plan shall show how any tributary drainage
Resolution No. ARC-####-14
772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13
Page 4
is collected and conveyed to an approved point of disposal. The drainage plan shall
consider the historic runoff from this site for both quantity and point of discharge.
Changes to the historic drainage may require additional drainage analysis from a licensed
civil engineer. The drainage analysis, if additional runoff is directed off -site, may need to
justify the capacity of the existing downstream drainage improvements.
12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall
show all existing and proposed utilities along with all utility company meters. The plan
shall show the location of the existing utilities located within the public right-of-way for
reference.
13. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with
submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. The
project's landscape and irrigation plans need to be in compliance with the City's
Municipal Code Chapter 17.87 and Engineering Standards. The requirements can be
found online at: http://v w .slocity.org/utilifies/download/engstandardsnewland.pdf.
14. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All landscaping
shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
15. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment. proposed. The
back flow preventer and double check assembly shall be screened using a combination of
paint color, landscaping, and if deemed appropriate by the Community Development
Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to
review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors.
16. The building plan submittal shall include a complete demolition and topographic survey
plan. The plan shall show all existing trees to remain and trees to be removed. The trees
in the area of the existing storage building shall remain unless otherwise approved for
removal by the City Arborist.
17. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property's existing
and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of
connection at the City water and sewer mains. The City's Utility Billing records indicate
that the site is served by two existing 5/8" water meters. Please verify whether one of
these existing water meters is proposed for landscape irrigation at the site.
18. If the property's existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video
inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the
Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be
abandoned per City standards.
Resolution No. ARC-####-14
772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13
Page 5
19. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in
such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting
background.
20. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air -
handling systems, automatic fire -protection systems, or other diction, suppression or
control elements shall be identified for use by the Fire Department and shall be located in
the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire
Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in
a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans.
21. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser
Room with a key to the room.
22. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in
accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13
System will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to installation. The fire main and all associated
control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards.
The Fire Department Connection shall be located along a fire apparatus access.
23. An approved fire alarm system is required for this project. The fire alarm system shall be
interconnected to the main campus, unless an approved 2 way communication system,
approved by the fire department, and manual pull stations are provided for both campus.
24. Emergency Planning: Outdoor assembly areas shall be designated and shall be located a
safe distance (at least 50 feet) from the building being evacuated so as to avoid
interference with fire department operations. The assembly areas shall be arranged to
keep each class separate to provide accountability of all individuals. Please designate on
plans.
25. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or
demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC
Resolution No. ARC-####-14
772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13
Page 6
On motion by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner
the following roll call vote: and on
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6" day of January 2014.
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 2
II ;iillfii0iiit(i96
1404 BROAD STREET, SAN LOTS OBISPO, (A 93401 (805) 540.8896
January 6, 2014
OLD MISSION SCHOOL - PALM STREET ANNEX
772 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
The following design statement is a part of the Architectural Review and Use Permit application
submittal requirements for a proposed redevelopment project located at 772/774 Palm Street known as
the Old Mission School Palm Street Annex. The applicant, Old Mission School is proposing to redevelop
an existing lot that currently includes residential and office uses, into new classroom and supporting
administrative spaces to accommodate the increasing enrollment at the primary Old Mission School
campus around the block.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Old Mission School (OMS) has experienced consistent growth in enrollment over the past few years
resulting in the need for additional classroom space. In recent years, Old Mission School has converted
two classrooms into a much needed computer lab. Currently, these students are attending classes in
overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep. The school intends to use the Annex property for specific
upper level 7' & 8'" grade classes.
The proposed project involves the construction of two buildings. The larger building will house 3
classrooms, accessory restrooms and a small meeting room. The smaller building will accommodate a
small staff office / lounge space for teachers. The buildings frame a side courtyard with circulation to a
small landscaped yard at the rear of the property. The property will support a maximum of 90 students
on the campus.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Primary purpose —7'" & 81" grade classrooms
Students —approximately 25 per classroom (not including the meeting space)
Staff — 3 teachers and 1 site administrator
Hours of operation — Sam - Spur (classes Sam-3pm) Occasionally the site may be used after hours by the
Old Mission School and/or Parish for back -to -school night, parent -teacher conferences, PTA, etc...
Page t of 4
1 � � : 1' 1 M
1404 BROAD STREET, SAN LOIS OBISPO, CA 93401(805) 540.8896
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The existing 9,232 square foot (.2 acre) lot is zoned R-4 High Density Residential and is bordered on
three sides by similar R-4 zoning. Across Palm Street is the Old Mission Church and parish zoned C-D
Downtown Commercial. The Diocese of Monterey currently owns the subject property as well as the
neighboring property to the West along with the Old Mission Church, Did Mission School and Mission
College Prep. An apartment building borders on the North and a single family residence borders the
East. The subject property currently contains two single family homes, one of which serves as a rental
residence for the Old Mission parish and the other serves as office and storage space for Old Mission
School and five parking spaces. Previous uses included a beauty salon. These existing structures are
approximately 50 years old, have no historical significance or architectural merit and will be removed to
make way for new development on the site.
Existing rear residence Existing front residence
Page 2 of
I 1 r
1404 BROAD SiREEi, SAN LDI-S OBISPO, (A 93401 (6051540.6896
The existing site topography slopes slightly towards the rear of the property and consists of asphalt
Paving/ parking towards the front and lawn/landscaping behind the rear house. While the proposed
Plan assumes the removal of four trees (two fig, two avocado) the design accommodates a cluster of
olive trees that the City Arborist estimated at 100 years old.
DAILY OPERATIONS
In the morning, the students will be dropped off at the main OMS campus as they have done in the past.
Each school day is started with a student body assembly after which, a portion of the 7" & 81h graders
will be escorted by their teachers, walking to the Annex classrooms for the morning's lessons. At noon,
these students will again be escorted by teachers and staff on the walk back to join the rest of their
Peers for lunch. After lunch, the balance of the 7`h & 8`h graders will then be escorted to the Annex for
afternoon classes. It should be noted, that the students at OMS are currently escorted by staff on a
regular basis to Mission College Prep for classes and the Old Mission for church services. At the end of
the school day, students at the Annex classrooms will be escorted back to the main OMS campus for
after -school activities or pick-up by parents. Long term staff parking for the Annex is proposed at the
existing OMS parking spaces in the parking garage at Mission College Prep. Long term and short term
bike parking are also proposed to remain at the primary OMS campus.
All primary activities at the Annex campus are intended to be indoors with the exception of a short
break in the morning and afternoon when the students will be occupy the patio/yard areas. Outdoor
spaces are not intended for play or recreation.
DESIGN APPROACH
The building's Mission revival architectural style was selected to complement the Old Mission properties
and be compatible with the historic neighborhood. The flat roof design is intended to minimize the
overall massing profile with respect to the neighboring properties while still providing the volume
required for classrooms and is preferred for skylights to daylight these spaces. Rooftop mechanical
equipment will be screened with architectural elements matching the building architecture.
The arched entry provides a clear entry to the campus, as well as a defined control space for staff to
observe who enters and exits the site. The rear yard includes a quite sunny courtyard along with a
covered arcade for circulation and to shade the west facing classroom windows. This landscaped
courtyard with stunning western views towards Cerro San Luis will be include new plantings, raised seat
walls and permeable pavers.
New landscaping for the project will include a palate of hardy, drought tolerant plant materials to
complement the architecture and the existing trees on site. It is intended to retain the mature Olive
trees at the rear of property along with the existing citrus trees and grape vines.
Exterior materials will consist of smooth troweled stucco walls, dark bronze, metal -clad windows/doors,
red clay tile roofing and parapet caps, and dark brown stained wood trim. Exterior and site lighting will
be consistent with the architectural style and will meet the City's lighting requirements and night sky
ordinance.
The doors on this east elevation of the classroom are emergency egress doors. And will be posted with
the following signage "This door may be opened for emergency egress oniy'.
Page 3 of 4
e r
1404 BROAD STREET, SAN LUIS 0618P0, (A 93401 (809) 540.8896
Proposed school signage will consist of individual raised metal lettering above or adjacent to the entry
archway in compliance with the City's adopted sign regulations.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project includes new sidewalk, curb & gutter per City standards. The project is requesting
a covenant to be defer the Mission Style sidewalk until neighboring properties upgrade.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
The applicant seeks relief from the City's incluslonary housing requirements per 17.19.030 exception 8.8
for educational facilities.
OFF -SITE PARKING EXCEPTION (Section 17.16.060.E)
This project is requesting flexibility with the City's Parking Space Requirements. The existing Mission
College Prep parking garage is within 300 feet of the Annex, has the capacity to accommodate all
teacher and staff parking and is not separated by anyfeatures that would make pedestrian access
inconvenient or hazardous. All church and school properties are under the ownership of the Diocese of
Monterey. Additionally, the existing City owned Palm Street parking garage is within 300 feet of the
Annex property. The existing driveway at the Annex is intended to remain for disabled students pick
up/drop-off and allow for occasional mid -day student pick-up/drop-off by parents for doctors/dentist
appointments.
SUMMARY
The proposed project will improve the aesthetic of the neighborhood and be compatible with the
historic nature of neighboring properties. The project's intended uses and hours of operation will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity
and will be complementary to the Church owned properties in the neighborhood. Keeping the Old
Mission School near the downtown core maintains a good mix of uses in the area and promotes the
concept of walkable communities.
C:IUu VUALDroPWXV ARCM0-MOJEC S10id MIWa kho.lI LDM'g'MSHA DML RI11. SIIPMN`TALS111.2ENTn1EMEN(SMRC1OLO MISSION SCHOOL -Ng,
SLateMMN ARC 131229.doa
Page 4 of 4
SUBJECT: ARC 131-13: 772, 774 & 776 Palm Street
Applicant response to ARC Directional Items
1. Soften east elevation and roof edge of the classroom building and add articulation to the west
side of the administration building.
Response: Chapter 3.I.B.S.c of the San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines states "Flat roofs are
appropriate far larger commercial structures when it is determined that a project's overall design
is amenable to flat roofs and is otherwise consistent with the objectives of the guidelines."
In addition, there are numerous examples of mission revival houses with flat roofs and parapets
throughout the City's historic neighborhoods directly adjacent to Craftsman, Victorian and other
red -tile roof houses. Finally, only small, limited views of east wall of the classroom building can
actually be seen from adjacent properties due to the 6' high property line wall 6'away from this
elevation. In addition, neighboring buildings block large areas of this elevation. We have
included an elevation showing this wall with these visual barriers.
We have included the following revisions to help soften this east elevation:
• Pilasters added
• Meeting room massing lowered 24"
• Meeting room shifted west 12"
The proposed design exemplifies they key design elements of the mission revival style including:
• simple massing
• unadorned, smooth troweled, thick stucco walls
• Limited fenestration and deep inset openings
2. Break up east wall with offsets (horizontal and vertical) such as adding pilasters
Response: Please see response to item #1.
3. Revise plans to include the currently shown roof -mounted equipment so that it is either internal
to building or ground mounted
Response: Chapter 6.D.2 of the San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines states "Roof -mounted
mechanical equipment should be screened by a building parapet or other effective roof design."
The rooftop equipment on the administration building has been screened by on architectural
parapet that is incorporated into the west facade. The rooftop equipment at the classroom has
been consolidated, moved away from the east property line and screened to match the building
architecture. The equipment is located over non -classroom spaces to minimize the transmission
of noise from vibration through the structure.
4. Move computer/media room farther from property line.
Response: The media room has been shifted 7' from the property line.
5. Recommend that the school meet with neighbors to resolve parking and pick/up drop off issues.
Response: The school is attempting to set up another meeting with the neighbors and the City's
parking services manager to discuss parking mitigation measures.
6. Expand notices to 500 feet.
Response: Noted
a(1l „11H)HV,4,n0 IN If
|,, A/\/•,m
[!]\&11 IN //§|
) A
]),).( §ƒ§§ $) .94Eh/al "My
Attachment 3
133 8e«g90 0\iA// 4
(| �
�
R ] })/( \
1801)111H)8V All no Wlf 13381S W1Vd - 100H)S NOISSIW 010 CV
r�erI MOO, QQ
38n1)11IN) 6V A13n0 WIf
133815 WIYd - 10ON)S NOISSIW 010 M
9In4 11$Y III, 4
3Nn13311HM A33nn Wif 133N1S wivi
3oaH3SNOISSiwa3a et
: 19('9 A1':pApf Q
1801)IIIN)8V A1in0 WI( 1)1HIS WIVd - 100N1S NOISS(W 010 LA
i 104'9 U-flmvI Q
d0 j
38N1331IN3B7 Ama WI( 133SIS WlVd - 100NiS NOISSIW 010 %C
f l J 1 4 t3 V n IV
3HnDI11N)8V A1300 WI( 133NIS W1Vd - 100N)S NOISSIW 010
.01-.111 IM aina'v earmr.r Q
f
3
q
mm°tlsu�
IAn1)]11N)4v AIina wi IIINIS w1Vd-1a6N)S NOISSIW aIa 00
..1 .1 W �: VIM ,Vrge A y/� �
�r�
a
-+
m
V
1
Fl,
0
38H1)31IH)8V A13H0 Wit
l .I nm
11381S W1Vd • 100H)S NOISSIW 010
3NN1)31IN)lV Aim WI(
ai -rnxn
133N1S Wltld 10ON)S NOISSIW 010 Cl
11.19iMilli r
Q
Is n! „IIR)HvA4A0a INIf ! „HIs IN n4
3aN1)311H)NV Milo Wlr
13381S W3Vd - 300H)S NOISSIW 010 N
k 101 vAB YiIH Yi P
N
x
z
Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
November 18, 2013
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins,
Commissioner Palazzo, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good,
and Chairperson Jim Duffy
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, and
Recording Secretary Shelly Mattocks
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of November 4, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chairperson Duffy recused himself from Item #1 and left the room, because he
prepared the project plans. Vice -Chair McCovey-Good assumed the role of
Chairperson for this item.
1. 772 and 774 Palm Street. ARC 131-13; Review of proposed classroom building
and administrative office for Old Mission School in the Downtown Historic Distract
and CEQA exemption (Class 32, Infill Development Projects:; R-4-H zone; Tina
Ballantyne, Old Mission School, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Associate Planner Brian Leveille, presented the staff report, recommending the
adoption of the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on
findings and subject to conditions.
Commr. Curtis asked for clarification on the administrative use permit appeal. Brian
Leveille responded that the appeal was withdrawn. Brian Leveille noted that the
modifications which were made to satisfy the appellant's concerns were minor and did
not result in modifications to the use permit conditions of approval. Commr. Ehdaie
questioned the lack of windows on the north elevation. Brian Leveille acknowledged
that there were not windows given the location at the back of the site.
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 2
Commr. Wynn asked if the parapet design had changed from the review at the
administrative hearing. Brian Leveille noted that, at the administrative hearing, a 15-foot
height was maintained, but the parapet height had increased on the east elevation of
the classroom building.
Commr. Palazzo asked about the grade level of the students. Brian Leveille responded
that they were 7" and 8th graders.
Commr. Palazzo questioned if there were any outside activities at the project site. Brian
Leveille responded no, noting that all physical education classes took place on the main
campus and that the design of the site would not allow for any significant outdoor
activities.
Rachel Kovesdi, project representative, provided some background on the need for the
classrooms. She noted that bell shown on plans is decorative and non -operative. She
explained that the design kept the building height at 15 feet even though the zoning
allowed up to 35 feet. She described the campus as very pedestrian oriented and
added that students and staff are already used to moving around the area and crossing
streets at designated crosswalks and are escorted between sites.
Commr. Palazzo asked if language arts were the primary focus of classes at the project
site. Ms. Kovesdi replied yes.
Commr. Palazzo questioned if there would be a need to expand the capacity of planned
facilities. Ms. Kovesdi replied that school needs will be met with the facilities proposed.
Commr. Ehdaie asked about the blank wall on the north elevation. Ms. Kovesdi
responded that this elevation faced an apartment project and the goal was to contain
students more to the interior of the site.
Commr. Palazzo asked about the reason for the doors on the east elevation. Ms.
Kovesdi replied that they were intended for emergency access only.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper noted his affiliations with the Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association
(MONA) and Save Our Downtown (SOD). He suggested that more detailing be added
to the blank property line wall abutting 873 Chorro, that the media room be eliminated,
and that street calming was needed in the neighborhood (bulb -outs and crosswalks).
Jim Johnson raised concerns that there was not sufficient notification of project
meetings. He thought the proposed building was beautiful but had concern with its
potential capacity and the possibility of increased enrollment in the future, which would
impact parking and drop-offs.
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 3
Michelle Gordon submitted a letter from the Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association
(MONA); she noted that the project should limit students to 56 and outlined other
concerns noted in her letter regarding parking, traffic, and concerns that residents were
not properly noticed from the main campus location.
David Brodie stated that the changes will be a huge impact and urged the ARC not to
sweep the concerns of the neighbors under the rug.
Kunt Friedman concurred with the previous MONA comments and shared concerns with
the impacts of the project.
Terry Paige noted that she was not anti -school but was pro -neighborhood.
David Drake was concerned with the industrial look of the east elevation and roofline
features.
Dr. Schumacher voiced his support for the project and the importance of education. He
noted that he did not think traffic was an issue in comparison to other parts of the world.
Dixie Cliff raised concerns with the safety of children.
Mark Anderson mentioned that many of his original concerns had been addressed, but
he still wanted to see the parapet height of the roof lowered.
James Lopes supported MONA concerns. He did not feel that this was the right
location.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
After the close of the public hearing, Senior Planner Ricci summarized the ARC's
purview with the project, noting that the following items raised during public comments
were appropriate items for the Commission to discuss and act on:
1. The appropriateness of the architectural style;
2. The relationship of the project to adjacent sites;
3. Roof design and equipment screening; and
4. Locations of buildings and other site features; and window treatment and other
building detailing.
She noted that the use permit was approved and that the appeal had been withdrawn
so that the land use entitlement was in place. She clarified that the use permit could be
reviewed in the future at a review hearing if there were violations of project conditions.
She added that there may be a possibility to seek improvements to area circulation
through a Neighborhood Traffic Management plan.
Commr. Wynn expressed concern with the limited notice for the use permit hearing and
that impacts were not clearly described to the neighborhood. He suggested that the
neighbors voice their concerns to the City Council. He indicated his support for the
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 4
architectural style. He suggested further refinements to soften the sloped portion of the
east elevation and stated that the blank wall on the north side was acceptable. He
recommended that alternatives to the proposed roof -mounted equipment be explored.
Commr. Hopkins stated that the design needs some improvement but that he was okay
with the basic architecture. He noted concerns with the blank walls and blocking of
sunlight.
Commr. Curtis voiced frustration with the ARC's lack of ability to deal with a number of
the issues raised by the public during the hearing. He supported the Mission Revival
architecture as suitable for the institutional use. He suggested more articulation for the
east elevation (more offsets) and that the media room be moved internally more. He
added that roof -top equipment needs to be totally screened.
Commr. McCovey-Good noted that project lighting needs to be shielded and the
parapet height resolved on the east elevation.
On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Curtis, to continue the item to a
date uncertain with the following direction:
1. Soften the east elevation and roof edge of the classroom building and add
articulation to the west side of the administration building.
2. Break up east wall with offsets (horizontal and vertical) such as adding pilasters.
3. Revise Diane to include the currently shown roof -mounted equipment so that it is
4.
5.
6.
Expand notices for future hearings to 500 feet from the proiect site.
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Curtis, Palazzo, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, and Hopkins
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Duffy
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 6:0:1 vote.
Chairperson Duffy returned to the meeting and re -assumed the role as meeting Chair.
2. 1119 Garden Street. ARC 129-13; Review of modifications to the approved
project design for Garden Street Terraces whch was approved with an Addendum
to the certified EIR; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Pam
Ricci)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the adoption of
the Draft Resolution which recommends to the City Council that the revised project
design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions which she outlined.
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 5
Carol Florence, project representative, introduced the project team and explained the
City agreement terms. To address Commr. Curtis's questions, she clarified how the
retail space in the project was calculated.
Jonathan Watts, project architect, noted that the color of brick had been lightened from
the darker shades previously proposed. He explained that the green wall would be
created by trailing plants on the interior plaza that will cascade down over the outside
wall visible from the street. He noted that the brick areas of the visible wall were fairly
small in scope and that the solution presented in plans was to leave it unadorned. He
explained that the elimination of 32,000 square feet in the former basement makes the
biggest change in overall project square footage. He went over the various floor levels
of the building in detail, noting that some hotel rooms were now proposed on the 2nd
floor of the SLO Brew building.
Commr. Wynn mentioned the reduced scale of the residential units. Jonathan Watts
responded that the units were planned for residential use for now but could be modified
to hotel units.
Commr. Curtis asked if the parking was reduced for economics or other considerations.
He expressed concern that the provided parking would not be sufficient for the demand
of all the hotel rooms. Carol Florence noted that the applicant would be required to pay
in -lieu parking fees to address the increased demands of the project.
Chair Duffy asked about the wood products proposed. Jonathan Watts responded that
it was a product called Resista which is a synthetic wood product that doesn't have
same maintenance concerns as real wood.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper was delighted with the financial realities that resulted in the reduced scale
of the project. He expressed concern with the exit corridors becoming new gum alleys;
he suggested illumination and interest be added and possibly some type of cover for
both aesthetics and security.
James Lopes complimented the architect on the project design changes and added that
the revised project was a better fit for SLO. He supported the Broad Street elevation as
designed but questioned the central brick of the Marsh Street elevation. He agreed with
the staff recommendation for additional articulation of the property line wall.
Victor Montgomery expressed his support for the project and clarified the 44" exit
corridor between properties.
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 6
Richard Stephens indicated that his main concern with the project related to parking
because there were more hotel rooms and less onsite parking. He recommended that
the valets not be allowed to utilize nearby street parking spaces for the hotel use.
Commr. Steven Hopkins supported the revised design as presented
Commr. Ken Curtis expressed concern that the mix of materials was busy and that he
preferred simplicity.
Commr. Michelle McCovey-Good supported the treatment as presented for the visible
property line walls.
Commr. Ken Curtis expressed disappointment that the substantial component of the
new project building at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets had been eliminated. He
continued to have concerns that the on -site parking was not sufficient to meet the
demands of the hotel.
Commr. Wynn noted concerns with the proposed composite panels. He indicated that
he would not support the project because of the reduction in scale.
On a motion by Commr. Palazzo, seconded by Commr. Hopkins, to adopt the draft
views will be covered at all times.
2. Eliminate Condition No. 9.
3. Correct the date in Condition No. 23 to January 1. 2014.
AYES: Commrs. Palazzo, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Ehdaie, Curtis, and Duffy
NOES: Commr. Wynn
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast — Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
ARC Minutes
November 18, 2013
Page 7
4. Commission: There were no specific communications to report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Shelly Mattocks
Recording Secretary
7ArovhtArch,tectural Review Commission on December 16, 2013.
Ted Green
Acting Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 5
crty of san Luis oBIspo
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
November 27. 2013
Tina Ballantyne, Principal
Old Mission School
761 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 131-13: 772 and 774 Palm Street
Review of proposed classroom building and administrative office for
Old Mission School in the Downtown Historic District and CEQA
exemption (Class 32, Infill Development Projects)
Dear Ms. Ballantyne:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of November 18, 2013, continued
consideration of the above -listed project to a date uncertain with the following
directional items:
1. Soften the east elevation and roof edge of the classroom building and add
articulation to the west side of the administration building.
2. Break up east wall with offsets (horizontal and vertical) such as adding pilasters.
3. Revise plans to include the currently shown roof -mounted equipment so that it is
either internal to building or ground mounted.
4. Move the computer/media room farther from property line.
5. Recommend that the school meet with neighbors to resolve parking and pick-
up/drop-off issues.
6. Expand notices for future hearings to 500 feet from the project site.
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Leveille at (805) 781-7166.
Sincerely,
��GGI
Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessors Office
Jim Duffy Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey
1404 Broad Street P.O. Box 2048
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Monterey, CA 93942-2048
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled In all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
i
' city of
san Luis osi
Attachment 6
Meeting Date: November 18, 2013
Item Number: 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed classroom building and accessory staff office.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 772 & 774 Palm St. BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166) fry
E-mail: beveille@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 131-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner PR_
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final
approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Appucanc
ima eanantyne, uia mission
School Principal
Representative
Jim Duffy, Architect
Zoning
R-4-H(High-Density Residential
with Historical Preservation
Overlay Zone)
General Plan
High -Density Residential
Site Area
9,232 square feet (.21 acre)
Environmental
Exempt from environmental
Status
review under Class 32 (Section
15332), Infill Development
Projects.
SUMMARY
The applicant, Old Mission School, is proposing to redevelop the subject property with
classrooms to accommodate 7a' and 8'n grade classes which are currently operating off -site at the
Mission Prep campus. The site is currently used for a rental residence and office space associated
with Old Mission School, and contains five parking spaces. The 7" and 8a' grade classes are
currently being accommodated in overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep which is located
adjacent to Old Mission School on Broad Street.
An administrative use permit was approved on October 18w authorizing the proposed school use
in the R-4 zone, and approving the request for off -site parking allowing the continuing use of
parking facilities located at Mission College Prep. On October 28`x, the Cultural Heritage
Committee found the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and
recommended that the ARC approve the final design. The applicant is now seeking the ARC's
approval of the project design.
ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The ARC's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG).
2.0 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION
The subject property currently contains five parking spaces and two single-family homes, one of
which serves as a rental residence for the Old Mission parish and the other serves as office and
storage space for Old Mission School. The existing structures are not historically significant and
are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the new development. The project site also
includes a cluster of olive trees that the City Arborist estimates at approximately 100 years old
which will be retained with the project.
The property is zoned High -Density Residential with the Historical Preservation Overlay
(R-4-H) and is within the Downtown Historic District. The Old Mission Parish Church and
Master List Mission property is located immediately across Palm Street. The Diocese of
Monterey currently owns the subject property as well as the neighboring property to the west
along with the Old Mission Church, Old Mission School and Mission College Prep. An
apartment building borders on the north and two single-family residences border the site to the
east.
2.1 Site InformatianNettlno
Site Size
feet (.21acres)
Present Use & Develonce
and office use intwo structures
Topographyveloped
site
Current vehicle accessay
7(.21acres)quare
from Palm Steetmove driveway access)
Surrounding Use/Zoni
Apartments, High -Density Residential (R4)
Mission Museum and Church, zoned Downtown -Commercial
with Historic Overlay (C-D-H)
esidence and Office use, zoned High -Density Residential with
c Overlay (R-4-H)
West: Residence, zoned High -Density Residential with Historic
Overlay (R-4-H)
2.2 Project Description
The two existing buildings will be demolished and asphalt paving removed to make way for the
proposed new development. Two single -story buildings are proposed for the school use. The
larger classroom building is 3,789 square feet and includes three classrooms, restrooms, and a
small meeting room. The smaller building is designed as a small staff office/lounge space for
teachers and is 560 square feet in size (Attachment 3, reduced scale project plans). Along Palm
Street, the existing curb cut will be abandoned and street parking will be restored.
ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 3
Mission Revival architectural style is proposed. The applicant's project statement explains this
style was selected to complement surrounding Old Mission properties and to be compatible with
the historic neighborhood. The proposed architecture includes flat roofs with curved parapets and
clay tile roofing. An arched entry provides a clearly visible access point to the site. Windows are
arched and inset into the building walls and the finish is smooth troweled stucco. Site
improvements and surface finishes include an accessible ramp, covered arcade, landscaped
courtyard, raised seat walls, permeable pavers, and scored/colored concrete.
Operational Program
Consistent with the use permit approved for the project site, the proposed classrooms may only
be used for classroom instruction (Project Description, Attachment 3). All other activities such as
drop off/pickup, assembly, physical education, recesses, and lunch breaks will occur at the main
Old Mission School Campus. Students will be escorted to and from the site by teachers and staff.
Outdoor spaces at the project site are not intendedfor play or recreation and no amplified sound,
electronic bells or buzzers will be used. The ongoing use of the project site is subject
conformance with the project description and conditions of approval reviewed through the
administrative use permit approved by the Community Development Director on October 18,
2013.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item
I Proposed'
Ordinance Standard'
Street Yard setback
(main building)
1 15 feet
15 feet
Street yard setback (break
18 feet
15 feet
room/office building)
Interior yard setbacks (east
6 feet
5.5 feet (buildings up to 15 feet)
elevation, 15' max height)
Interior yard setback (north
5.5 feet
5.5 feet
elevation, 15' max height)
Interior yard setback
5 feet
5 feet
(administration building west
elevation, 12' max height)
Max. Height of Structure(s)
17 feet
35 feet
Lot Coverage
51%
60%
Parking Requirement
8 spaces
8 off -site parking spaces
approved in administrative use
permit review.
Bicycle parking
N/A
No requirement for uses that
require less than SO spaces.
Jcries: 1. Applicant s project plans submitted 8-14-2013
2. City Zoning Regulations
ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 4
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Community Design Guidelines
The following applicable guidelines from the Community Design Guidelines are highlighted
followed by staff's analysis of the project's design consistency with the cited guidelines.
• 3.1.B.1. Architectural Style.
Staff Analysis: The above guideline states that while variety in design is generally encouraged,
the compatibility of new projects with the existing environment should be a priority. The
project's Mission Revival architectural style is compatible with the prevailing architectural
character of the area. The Mission is located across Palm Street and the property, including the
Church and museum, occupies the entire portion of the block between Broad and Chorro Streets
across from the project site. The project site is also in close proximity to the main school campus
which is developed with Mission Revival architecture.
• 3. LB.2. Neighborhood Compatibility
Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with the above guideline since the proposed
development maintains its own identity and complements its surroundings. The proposed
buildings are an appropriate design theme for the neighborhood since there is similarly designed
Mission architecture in the vicinity and the proposed structures are proportional to existing
development on the north side of Palm Street which are also primarily single story structures.
The proposed project includes appropriate building setbacks and massing and the proposed
colors, textures, and building materials will be compatible with the neighborhood.
• 3.I.B.3. Design Consistency
Staff Analysis: This guideline discusses that building designs should demonstrate a consistent
use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building and that each
building should look like the same building from all sides. The proposed buildings incorporate a
consistent design theme at all elevations of the two buildings with smooth troweled stucco,
lighting, windows and doors, and clay tile roofing extends around the building capping the
parapets.
• 3.1.B.5. Rooflines
Staff Analysis: Roof design is an important element of a structure having an image of
permanence and quality. The project design is consistent with Design Guidelines since it has a
continuous screening parapet and is topped with tile and cornice elements. The flat roof design is
consistent with the Mission Revival design style and the parapet design includes curved elements
and architectural details.
ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street
Old Mission School
Page 5
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under the Infill Development Categorical
Exemption (Class 32). The project complies with this exemption since it is consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Regulations, is on a site of less than five acres and is substantially
surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species and will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services.
In the previous staff discussion in the administrative hearing. and Cultural Heritage Committee
review, staff was anticipating the need to prepare an initial study since the project could have the
potential to disturb archaeological deposits due to its close proximity to the Mission. Staff has
determined that environmental review is not required since the project fulfills the above
discussed requirements for the categorical infill development exception and the project design
already incorporates measures which will minimize the potential for adverse impacts to
archaeological resources with the use of caissons and compliance with existing requirements of
the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as
conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
.mac-- Zvi inCkh"()
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant project description
4. Reduced size project plans
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
I
Attachment 3
OF
OLD Mission School — Palm Street Annex
772 & 774 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Description of the Project: The Old Mission School (OMS) has experienced consistent
growth in enrollment over the past few years resulting in the need for additional
classroom space. The school intends to use the Annex property for upper level 7" & 8"
grade classes. Currently, these students are attending classes in overflow classrooms at
Mission College Prep. Mission College Prep has also experienced increased enrollment
over the past few years, and can therefore no longer offer classroom space to the
elementary and middle school.
Old Mission School is proposing to redevelop an existing lot that currently includes
residential and office uses, into new classroom and supporting administrative spaces to
accommodate the existing enrollment at the primary Old Mission School campus around
the block. This proposal will redistribute the existing middle school student body
currently accommodated on a temporary basis at Mission College Prep, with no proposed
increase in enrollment or staff.
The proposed project involves the construction of 2 two buildings. The larger building
will house 3 classrooms, accessory restrooms and a small meeting room, which will be
used for small group or one-on-one sessions. Occupancy on the site is limited to 90
students maximum. The smaller building will accommodate a small staff office and
lounge space for teachers. The buildings frame a side courtyard with circulation to a
small landscaped yard at the rear of the property. The existing driveway at the Annex will
be eliminated and replaced with standard City curb, gutter and sidewalk. Windows on
the east side of the facility will be non -operable, with east -facing classroom doors posted
with the following or similar language "This door may be opened for emergency egress
only"
PROJECT STATISTICS
Primary purpose — 7s' & 8`s grade classrooms for currently enrolled students
Students — approximately 25 per classroom
Staff — 3 teachers and 1 site administrator
Hours of operation — 8am- 5pm (classes 8am-3pm)
PROPERTY BACKGROUND
The existing 9,232 square foot (.2 acre) lot is zoned R-4, High Density Residential and is
bordered on three sides by similar R-4 zoning. The Old Mission Parish Church is located
immediately across Palm Street and is zoned C-D Downtown Commercial. The Diocese
of Monterey currently owns the subject property as well as the neighboring property to
the West along with the Old Mission Church, Old Mission School and Mission College
Prep. An apartment building borders on the North and a single-family residence borders
the site to the East. The subject property currently contains two single-family homes, one
of which serves as a rental residence for the Old Mission parish and the other serves as
office and storage space for Old Mission School and five parking spaces. Previous uses
included a beauty salon. These existing structures are approximately 50 years old, have
no historical significance or architectural merit and will be removed to make way for new
development on the site.
The existing site topography slopes slightly towards the rear of the property and consists
of asphalt paving/puking towards the front and lawn/landscaping behind the rear house.
While the proposed plan assumes the removal of four trees (two fig, two avocado) the
design accommodates a cluster of olive trees that the City Arborist estimates at
approximately 100 years old.
OPERATIONAL PROGRAM
In the morning, all students will be dropped off at the main OMS campus on Broad
Street, per current and historic school procedure. Each school day is started with a
student body assembly on the main OMS campus, after which a portion of the 71h & 8`h
graders will be escorted by their teachers, walking to the Annex classrooms for the
morning's lessons. At noon, teachers and staff will again escort these students back to the
main campus to join their peers for lunch. After lunch, the balance of the 7`h & 8" graders
will then be escorted to the Annex for afternoon classes. At the end of the school day
(approximately 3:00), all students at the Annex classrooms will be escorted back to the
main OMS campus for after -school activities or pick-up by parents.
Student drop-off and pick up at the Palm Street Annex is prohibited at all times
throughout the day, except for disabled access. Long term teacher and staff parking for
the Annex will continue to be accommodated in the existing OMS parking spaces in the
parking garage at Mission College Prep.
The intent of the proposed project is not to increase enrollment or capacity at Old
Mission School, rather to adequately accommodate the school's current enrollment.
Existing OMS students have been utilizing Mission College Prep classrooms on a
temporary basis. All students at OMS are currently escorted by staff on a regular basis to
Mission College Prep for classes and to the Old Mission Parish Church for church
services. Therefore, no significant change in use or intensity is proposed with this
project.
All primary activities at the Annex campus are intended to be indoors with the exception
of a short passing period in the morning and afternoon when the students will occupy the
patio/yard areas. Students will not utilize the Palm Street Annex site for outside
assembly, recess or lunchtime activities. All Physical Education classes and recess
periods will continue to occur on the main OMS campus. Outdoor spaces at the Annex
location are not intended for play or recreation and no amplified, electronic bells or
buzzers will be used. Public use of the Palm Street Annex site is prohibited, and
occasional uses after 5:00 pm. shall be limited to those related to the Old Mission School
and Parish.
.90
[!#HPmB!
| }
» ^{J°)
7|
�l)q
J
`
®
/
ƒ
¥`
; +
e
!)
`z
-....:
--------
1J`.
t
-----------
------------
ƒ �g«
�
$
MEL-
, [�
! � «
�E(
!°
m
city of Meeting Date: January f
San l lS OBISPO Item Number: rJ.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual review of a mixed -use project with 26 residential units and 7,300
square feet of commercial space.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1241-1285 Laurel Lane BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner{
Phone Number: 781-7166
e-mail: bleveille@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC-C 156-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FK
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and
the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Patrick Aurignac, Laurel Lane
Investments, LLC
Representative
Christi Fry, PE, Triad Holmes
Assoc.
Zoning
C-N (Neighborhood -Commercial)
General Plan
Neighborhood Commercial
Site Area
-2.2 acres
Environmental
Categorically Exempt as an infill
Status
redevelopment project pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
:UJ t`t /l
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 3, reduced scale plans) for conceptual review
of a proposed mixed use redevelopment project at the location of the existing Laurel Lane
commercial center.
Staff has conducted an analysis of project plans (Section 3.0) and provided directional items
(Section 6.0) for consideration and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) discussion with
the purpose of providing feedback to the applicant prior to revising plans and returning for
final approval.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The purpose of
conceptual review before
the ARC is to offer
feedback to the applicant
as to whether the project
design is headed in the
right direction before
plans arerevised and
refined with the detail
necessary for final review.
The ARC's role is to
review the project in
terms of its consistency
with the Community
Design Guidelines
(CDG).
2.0 PROJECT
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size
2.2 acres
Present Use & Development
Shopping Center and single-family residence
Topography
Slopes predominantly from north end of site to the south end
of site along Laurel Lane (approximately 6%).
Access
Two driveways from Laurel Lane
Surrounding Use/Zoning
North/Northeast: R-1 & R-3; Single-family residential and multi-
family
South: R-2 & R-4; Multi -family uses
East: R-2; multi -family & nursing center
West: P-F; Fire Station N3, C-N; Community Garden &
Neighborhood Service uses, R-4-S, Residential care facility
The overall project site is 2.2 acres and is located on the east side of Laurel Lane between
Southwood Drive and Augusta Street. This project site currently is developed with a small
scale neighborhood commercial shopping center including a market, and single-family
residence (Figure 1, above). The majority of the site is paved and site access consists of two
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 3
driveway entrances to the parking areas from Laurel Lane. Trees on the property include
several mature street trees, a pepper tree adjacent to the residence and a large eucalyptus tree
which is proposed to be removed.
2.2 Project Description
Demolition plans include the removal of the existing commercial building and hardscape, as
well as the existing 1,120 square -foot residence. The detached neighborhood market structure
on the north side of the property which is currently vacant (formerly Laurel Liquor) will
remain and be incorporated into proposed future project plans. Presumably, the area of the
existing parking lot and access needed for continuing operation of the 2,100 square foot
market will remain until planned construction phasing. The applicant's plans show that 10
total phases are proposed (plan sets, Sheet 5). Project plans do not depict the amount of
planned demolition or what portion of the existing site improvements will remain for each
planned phase (see Directional Item V, below).
2.2.1 Commercial units (with residential units above)
Proposed development consists of two commercial buildings along Laurel Lane with a total of
9,500 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and five residential units above.
Two 2-bedroom residential units are proposed on the upper floor of Building `B", and three
residential units on the upper floor of Building "A" (a one bedroom unit, two bedroom unit,
and a three bedroom unit). Access to the commercial spaces is provided at the rear of the
building adjacent to the common parking area. The residential units located above the
commercial space are accessed via stairwells at each end of the building (plan sheet AC-1).
Proposed architectural treatments include stucco surfacing, aluminum storefront window
systems, galvanized metal roof awnings and pitched roofs with composition roofing and
parapets (Figure 2, below).
Figure 2. Building A"street elevation
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 4
2.2.2 Residential units
In addition to the five residential units proposed above the commercial spaces, 21 residential
units are proposed on the site (26 units total). There are three unit configurations shown with
five duplexes (10 units), one triplex (3 units), and two four-plex buildings (8 units). Each of
the residential units are three levels with two -car garages at the ground level, common spaces
at the second level with great room,. dining and kitchen; and two -bedrooms on the third level.
Proposed architecture is similar for each building with the use of a combination of stucco,
Hardie -board siding, painted iron railing, and composition roofing (Figure 3, below). Each
unit has cross gables and a protruding dormer element above the garage (plan sheets AR-1 &
AR-2).
rrgare j. lyprcal front elevation of residential units.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The purpose of conceptual review before the ARC is to offer feedback to the applicant as to
whether the project design is headed in the right direction before plans are further refined for
formal review. The project would return to the ARC for a comprehensive analysis at a later
date. The following paragraphs highlight key elements of the site and building design of the
project that the ARC should discuss and provide direction to staff and the applicant. Staff has
included draft directional items in the report following each discussion item. At the
conclusion of the report, draft directional items are also provided in a list format as a starting
point for discussion of the project.
3.1 Commercial Buildings
Staff Analysis — Architectural Style: Staff has included several recommended directional
items requiring a redesign of these buildings and submittal of complete plans necessary for
final architectural review. In general, the building designs lack the design excellence for infill
and redevelopment sites as called for in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG)'. The
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 1, Goals for Quality Design & Character. Design should "fit' into an
area with a clearly defined character that is valued by the community.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 5
project site is not located in a historic neighborhood, and is not surrounded by any one
particular architectural style. The applicant should have great latitude to consider a variety of
potential architectural styles found in San Luis Obispo while maintaining compatibility in
scale and ambience with the surrounding neighborhood. As a recent nearby example, in
2008, construction was completed on a condominium project located adjacent to the project
site at the comer of Laurel and Southwood which incorporated a contemporary design theme.
Directional Item #l: Redesign the commercial buildings to incorporate a more
refined architectural style. The design could incorporate elements of traditional or
historical themes, or could reflect a modern or contemporary design.
Directional Item Q., Provide all building elevations and all details as called for in
the Architectural Review Commission checklist. Building elevations shall
demonstrate design consistency throughout all elevations of the building. Plans
should clearly depict the elevations for each side of the building and be shown
accurately based on the slope of the site. Building elevations shall contain all
required information for final review including but not limited to awning details,
lighting, exterior finish samples, colors, trim and fascia dimensions, gutters.
Staff Analysis — Roof Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that roof design
contributes strongly to the image of a structure as having quality and permanence. Pitched
roofs should either be full pitched or should appear so from the street.' The proposed project
design incorporates pitched roofs with parapets that are clearly visible and create an awkward
appearing transition.
Directional Item #3: Revised building designs shall incorporate rooflines which are
consistent with Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.B.5.
Staff Analysis — Outdoor use areas: Neighborhood -Commercial developments typically
have a high ratio of restaurant uses. The proposed design does not accommodate outdoor
seating areas for the commercial spaces. The project design should be revised to incorporate
outdoor areas which could be used for outdoor seating.
Directional Item #4. Revised plans shall include outdoor areas accessible from the
commercial spaces which could be utilized for outdoor dining.
Staff Analysis — Site Planning and Other Design Details: The applicant's proposed plans
did not include submittal information for staff to evaluate site details such as lighting,
trash/recycling enclosures, screening of mechanical equipment, and the location and method
of screening for backflow prevention devices.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.l.B.l. A wide range of architectural styles adds to the City's overall
image.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 33.51).
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 6
Directional Item #5. Revised plans shall include lighting details for buildings,
parking areas, walkways, or any other areas of the site. The lighting shall comply
with Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.C. and Zoning Regulations for Night
Sky Preservation. Revised plans submitted for final approval shall also include
information on plans to verify compliance with Community Design Guidelines for
screening and placement of mechanical equipment, trashlrecycling enclosures and
utilities including backflow prevention devices.4
Staff Analysis — Signs: Community Design Guidelines state that every structure should be
designed with specific consideration for adequate signing'.
Directional Item # 6: Revised plans shall incorporate conceptual sign locations
on the commercial buildings and any proposed multi -tenant or directory signs
such as freestanding post signs or monument signs. Plans shall include
dimensions, illumination and materials. Internally illuminated channel letters or
cabinet signs will not be appropriate within the project site. The colors,
placement, and materials of all signs should integrate with the architecture and
fagade details of the structure.
Directional Item #7.• In order to allow for complete evaluation of each planned
phase of development, provide complete plans which demonstrate for each phase
of proposed development, the scope of planned demolition of buildings, asphalt
surfacing (existing parking) and any other improvements. All submitted plane
sheets shall be consistent (e.g. landscape, architectural, tentative map).
3.2 Residential Buildings
Staff Analysis — Architectural Style: Similar to the above discussion on the commercial
buildings, the residential buildings do not exhibit an architectural style or character.' Since
there are eight separate residential buildings proposed, there should also be some variation
between the units.
Directional Item #8: Redesign the residential buildings to incorporate a design
theme which reflects an architectural style found in San Luis Obispo. The design
could incorporate elements of traditional or historical themes, or could reflect a
modern or contemporary design. The residential buildings shall be
complementary to the design of commercial buildings in the project and should
include some variation between buildings while maintaining a complementary
design theme.
4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.lC-G
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.B.13.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 1.4. A. Maintain high quality craftsmanship in development with use
of authentic buildigns dtyles, design elements, and materials. Require design excellence for infill and
redevelopment sites.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 7
Staff Analysis — Multi -family project architecture: Design guidelines state the design for
multi -family projects should ensure that the height and bulk of the project does not impact
adjacent lower density residential areas'. The project site is adjacent to single family
development to the east, and lower scale apartments and a nursing home which are at a lower
grade from the project site. The proposed building designs include three levels with overall
building heights up over 32 feet from the lowest floor elevation. Revisions are needed to
reduce the apparent height and bulk of the structures. Community Design Guidelines state that
structures with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof
articulation to reduce apparent scale (Figure 4, below).
Directional Item #9: Revised project plans shall incorporate changes in wall
planes and roof heights, and include elements such as balconies, porches,
dormers, and cross gables consistent with Community Design Guideline 5.4. C.
Figure 4. Design Guidelines figures 5-2 & 5-4
Staff Analysis — various completeness items: More information is needed for staff to
evaluate setbacks, building heights, combined wall and fence heights, and potential conflicts
with solar access requirements on the adjacent apartment project downhill from the project
site.
Directional Item #10: Resubmitted project plans shall incorporate information to
allow complete review of the proposed revised project to evaluate conformance
with City guidelines, policies, and regulations (items a-f, section 6. 0).
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Information needs and concerns with the project design from the other departments are
included in the directional items below.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.4.C. Multi -family architecture.
8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5AC.1, Fagade and roof articulation.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 8
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with the following directional items:
1. Redesign the commercial buildings to incorporate a more refined architectural style.
The design could incorporate elements of traditional or historical themes, or could
reflect a modern or contemporary design.
2. Provide all building elevations and all details as called for in the Architectural Review
Commission checklist. Building elevations shall demonstrate design consistency
throughout all elevations of the building. Plans should clearly depict the elevations for
each side of the building and be shown accurately based on the slope of the site.
Building elevations shall contain all required information for final review including
but not limited to awning details, lighting, exterior finish samples, colors, trim and
fascia dimensions, gutters.
3. Revised building designs shall incorporate rooflines which are consistent with
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.B.5.
4. Revised plans shall include outdoor areas accessible from the commercial spaces
which could be utilized for outdoor dining.
5. Revised plans shall include lighting details for buildings, parking areas, walkways, or
any other areas of the site. The lighting shall comply with Community Design
Guidelines Chapter 6.C. and Zoning Regulations for Night Sky Preservation. Revised
plans submitted for final approval shall also include information on plans to verify
compliance with Community Design Guidelines for screening and placement of
mechanical equipment, trash/recycling enclosures and utilities including backflow
prevention devices.
6. Revised plans shall incorporate conceptual sign locations on the commercial buildings
and any proposed multi -tenant or directory signs such as freestanding post signs or
monument signs. Plans shall include dimensions, illumination and materials. Internally
illuminated channel letters or cabinet signs will not be appropriate within the project
site. The colors, placement, and materials of all signs should integrate with the
architecture and fagade details of the structure.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 9
7. In order to allow for complete evaluation of each planned phase of development,
provide complete plans which demonstrate for each phase of proposed development,
the scope of planned demolition of buildings, asphalt surfacing (existing parking) and
any other improvements. All submitted plans sheets shall be consistent (e.g. landscape,
architectural, tentative map).
8. Redesign the residential buildings to incorporate a design theme which reflects an
architectural style found in San Luis Obispo. The design could incorporate elements of
traditional or historical themes,. or could reflect a modem or contemporary design. The
residential buildings shall be complementary to the design of commercial buildings in
the project and should include some variation between buildings while maintaining a
complementary design theme.
9. Revised project plans shall incorporate changes in wall planes and roof heights, and
include elements such as balconies, porches, dormers, and cross gables consistent with
Community Design Guideline SA.C.
10. Resubmitted project plans shall incorporate the following information to allow
complete review of the proposed revised project to evaluate conformance with City
guidelines, policies, and regulations:
a. Elevations: Elevations of all sides of proposed buildings accurately showing any
foundations, stem walls, or retaining walls needed for construction on the
sloping site.
b. Setbacks and building height: Provide dimensioned setbacks to adjacent
property lines and include height from existing grade. Information should be
provided for staff to evaluate height from average natural grade for each
building.
c. Sections: Provide sections through each of the buildings as called for in the
architectural review checklist. The sections should include any retaining walls
and show the existing and proposed grades and relations ship of buildings,
parking and landscaping at maturity and include major structures on adjacent
properties.
d. Wall Details: Provide complete wall details and wall profiles across the length
of retaining walls and include fence details. The height of the walls and fences
shall be shown from the top of the wall or fence to the finished grade side of the
wall on the project site and from the top of the wall to the natural grade line on the
Ascent property to the south.
e. Grading and earthwork: Please show existing and proposed contours and
include a brief narrative on how the site will be modified to accommodate the
proposed project. Contours must extend 15' beyond property lines.
f. ARC checklist: Provide all required submittal checklist items for architectural
review.
ARC-C 156-13 (Laurel Lane Mixed Use)
Page 10
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Applicant submitted project description
3. Reduced Size Project Plans
Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans
A �
a I� i m a N m
Attachment 2
Laurel Lane Mixed Use
Project Description:
The proposed parcel map will split the property into two lots, one approximately 4,100 square
foot parcel for the existing corner market which will remain and one 2.1 acre parcel for the
proposed new mixed use condominium project. The existing 14,165 square foot commercial
building in the center of the site and the existing 1,120 square foot residence in the southerly
portion of the site will be demolished.
The condominium component of the proposed project is comprised of 7,340 square feet of
commercial "grid" air -space condominium units within two buildings and 26 residential
condominium units. Of those residential condominiums, 21 of them will be 3-storytownhome
style units located within 8 separate buildings. Each townhome style unit has approximately
1,750 square feet of living area in addition to a 2-car garage on the first level. The remaining 5
residential airspace units will be located above the new 7,340 square foot commercial units, on
the second level, and will use the shared parking lot.
The mixed use condominium project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases. The two
new buildings, with first floor commercial space and second level residential units, are expected
to be completed in the earliest construction phase(s), along with demolition of the existing
small residence for use as a construction staging area. It is desired that the existing large
commercial building and current businesses will remain, as long as feasible, while the new
commercial components of the project are completed. The remaining townhome style
residential units will be constructed on a building by building basis. Depending on the market
and financing, more than one residential building maybe proposed in a single construction
phase.
Onsite utilities for the project are also intended to be installed in phases. The project will have
a shared private sewer system that exits the site with a single lateral near the southwest corner
of the parcel. The gravity flow sewer system will likely dictate the sequencing of the residential
building construction, as it gets extended upstream for each construction phase.
The goal for the applicant is to record the two lot Parcel Map as quickly as possible in order to
be able to sell the corner market parcel to initiate the financing for construction of the
condominium project.
Attachment 3
91 �$61hill 91161261 {i�Gp�f�l'
Il`sli t11` l° ° i P.
Y€N !a 3� P. sly:: YYe
Emil
l; i1 l� y{d - � d Hill
PH , ,
I99�miEi9�lsl nkd lf3 iM di�§SSIl_Rl
w
O
Ii%
4
ryryyy
y(
��tlpp
I
N
•�/� ____—____
I
i
iiE
V
Y�SY P
S
dt
IIttW-ftK1JN YI-[i nlz 1 IDrve O � � H1 i'� ��
Illl Nv7d 39VNIVYO � ONIOVY0 �1�I��G1p�u i ry r
>SOO-t! Wd ON dVW 3mQY1N3[ ON¢S31 � 13 ii LI i{LI 414Li i �Y(1 Q I '_ 6
ppp{
@ i
d
0
nsFso-clmr000 V-es m. 1 u d �� �� a
SNOLZ03S d
6S00-f( il'd 07S W 3 UVJNM ONUS � 57 �L1 Ulu I i41
a
a
s
�
5
^
' r
e
c
G
n
r
•
� � e
I"
v� 1
i
q .r
I I
";• �
a
;ii
i I
x
5
e
r
a
I
eel
a-± 5
E
!�� 2
pp !
� ee`
Nv7d,ulAl17 � �f ; 'r�'y�
�.�I fI•I�pI
ij
9 v�
KW-fl Md ON dYW 3 UVINX ONILSN 9i i�Ll eELi p.1A
(LI iil! IS �I°I�O�
' i "
$ICa€p13913a
Ira .iStl � �,
00
�
3
i'
of o
�Fg
m3
O`
jkV
O
O
O
5 I
6
yyyyfs aavNmx
S
a /\
/
I
NV7d ONSVNd (OUOn&SNOO
Y' pl MIN + �p -Fl m or dYW 3U v)I . S3 i11Ei It, Ai'�LI r, ILId El
elnm ure
!
�...v wn
>
IS
'�Sn Q'.Z}i1w '�m� 7'�un
1O3LMoNtlWIJ1 3INNH
emi xve
mod...
.waa exn aaann
�.
I
HJTItl W151n81NN3
as f, (laxiN 3NTI l'a*dnvli
pp
pp
co
w
z
a
s
mete. e.n xve
s. $
aaaxa> axn iaann
Y
'I3?IfIVII
gg
�
1�3IIHDAV WIN 31NN3
i 2
'HSR QRXIN HNVII
�I f I
�
00
it _. �I►_i
_
I ^�I
_
-ram
N
mawv rumnnr
qry
i+
oa918 8181 Nv8
N
PP
'� o
�sn aaxi� au� �sxnv�
t
pp
99
.LJ311HJNtl WIN 31NN3
�h
6
Y S
74E
,w,
4
]"o.
°""m
�a:�a�
•
Davao elni xre
t
@u, w
T
aaaxao awn "Inn
INJAHaW WQ131P1K3
", "8 z
HSR (laxity amvli zaitnvZ
■III"IIIII�1°
I
G
G
==
cm
�
IIIIIII
:�,
�
Mill
�C
-
�
O
2_
z
iEl
9
z
3
N
n
a
adwspuul
_,$wf
K
<
��
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
December 16, 2013
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Greg Wynn,
Anthony Palazzo, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, Chair Jim Duffy
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Marcus Carloni, Supervising
Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Kyle Bell
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of November 18 and December 2, 2013, were approved as
presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1327 Osos Street. ARC-C 96-13; Conceptual review of plans for a mixed -use
project including nine (9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space
in the Old Town Historic District; R-3-H and O-H zones; Mission Medical, LLC,
applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, pointing out that it was a
conceptual review and recommending that the project be continued to a date uncertain,
with directional items.
Commr. Curtis asked if the 2009 ARC approval of the architectural design had expired.
Ms. Ricci responded that it had.
Commr. Curtis asked if staff or the applicant knew why the subterranean parking had
been eliminated from the current version of the project. Ms. Ricci commented that it had
to do with economics and that the applicant could further elaborate.
Commr. Wynn asked if the other City departments had reviewed the plans. Ms. Ricci
responded that the plans had been routed to the other departments twice; she noted
that the Fire Department indicated that the buildings in the middle of the site need to
accommodate qualifying access to upper floors.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 2
Commr. Curtis asked if staff had looked at the parking arrangement on Morro Street to
see if the geometrics work. Ms. Ricci stated that staff had carefully reviewed the
parking. She noted that earlier plans for the Morro side of the development included
garages facing the street. She acknowledged that the current parking off of Morro
Street was tight, but met City standards.
Carol Florence, project representative, introduced the applicant team and provided
some background on the project. She commented on the tandem parking increase and
how the project has changed due to comments from staff.
Hamish Marshall, applicant, explained that the underground parking had become very
expensive and had to be removed from the project. He added that the current parking
arrangement works with the project redesign that flips the commercial and residential
uses on the site.
Jonathan Watts, project representative, commented on how the office tandem parking
would work at the site with spaces allocated to tenants, and how tandem parking has
worked in other office development that he is familiar with.
Ms. Florence commented on the proposals to remove most of the existing trees on the
site because they did not coordinate with proposed development plans or were near the
end of their life spans.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that recently a tree fell on a car, and that he consulted with the
City Arborist after this incident. He indicated that the Arborist stated that some of the
existing on -site trees are on the decline.
Mr. Watts commented on the architectural design of the project and how it has changed
since the 2009 version of the project.
Ms. Florence commented on the landscaping parts of the project, and that they include
spaces for tenants to grow food, and enhanced pavement that is great for block parties.
She also commented that Mitchell Park is a block away and that the park provides
plenty of open space for the tenants to use.
Commr. Wynn asked if the office space in the project would be used for administrative
or medical uses. Mr. Marshall stated that it could be used for either. Ms. Ricci noted
that medical offices had a higher parking requirement.
Commr. Ehdaie asked about the change in the architectural style between the previous
and current versions of the project and the reason not to use the Neo-Victorian. Mr.
Watts responded that the desire was not to mimic the adjacent church.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Stew Jenkins noted that the project is located in Old Town historical district and that he
preferred the previous architectural style of the project. He went on to explain how the
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 3
contemporary design doesn't belong in this area of town, and that it clashes with the
historic structures around it. He indicated that the architect had made attempts to
improve the street views of the project with the latest elevations, but that the project is
still not a good enough fit for the neighborhood.
Pete Peterson stated that the current design of the project does not blend with the
neighborhood and detracts from the historical district. He also expressed concerns with
drainage impacts and that proposed parking was inadequate.
Grant Robbins expressed his support of the project and how it promotes walkability. He
felt that the current parking arrangement was better than the previous proposal which
added more cars to Morro Street. He commented that the best way to pay homage to
historic architecture is to not mimic it, but contrast it with diversity.
Aaryn Abbott supported the project as it promotes walkability and density. He added
that the tandem parking might be a worthwhile tradeoff even with the inconvenience.
Diane Jenkins expressed concern with the modern designs in the neighborhood and
how they are not the best fit.
Alice Davis commented that the discussion on the project architecture should be
focused on if it is a good fit for the neighborhood.
Chairperson Jim Duffy recommended a short break at 6:35 p.m.; the break ended at
6:45 p.m.
Pam Ricci summarized the concerns with the tandem parking as proposed was that the
arrangement and layout was not efficient, that the proposal created conflicts with turning
movements in a tight space, and that the number of tandem spaces exceeded City
requirements for an office use.
Mr. Marshall commented that the tandem parking could work at this site given the
project's close proximity to the parking garage, which provides additional convenient
parking. He explained that the goal is to encourage people to walk and to utilize the
land to increase its urban feel.
Vice -Chair McCovey-Good supported the land use flip and commented the new design
presented at the meeting by the applicant is heading in the right direction with the varied
roof lines. She stated that a contemporary design could work here, and that the project
should complement, but not mimic the historic designs of the church or neighboring
structures.
Commr. Hopkins mentioned his support of infill projects and that the density and
massing of the project was good. He noted that the current design would fit better in the
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 4
Railroad District, but does not meet the needs of the historical district. He indicated that
the proposed changes to the materials palette was a positive step.
Commr. Ehdaie explained how she likes the contemporary design, and that the pitched
roof adds more character and complements the church; however, she stated that it is
important to separate the project architecture from the church style
Commr. Curtis supported the land use flip. He commented that he was skeptical about
the viability of the access from Morro Street and would like to see more detailed plans
depicting the cantilevered building. He noted that full parking reductions may not be
warranted here since the amount of viable shared spaces was very limited with the
amount of tandem parking shown. He asked that more information be presented in the
future about the types of office uses planned to determine if the parking was sufficient.
He expressed that a variety of building styles could work at this site as long as the
materials and detailing was properly executed.
Commr. Palazzo stated that some tandem parking could work if an efficient layout is
provided. He commented that the contemporary design may not be appropriate at this
site.
Commr. Wynn commented that the design of the residential side of the project appears
better than the commercial side. He expressed concerns regarding the site massing,
not being consistent with the surrounding area. He agreed that moving the office use to
Osos seemed right, but may create more access issues because of the heavier
amounts of traffic on that street. He noted that the Contemporary architecture style
does not fit the area; "matchy-matchy is bad, but clashy-clashy is also bad."
Chairperson Jim Duffy commented that the project should push the 35-foot height limit,
and that he supports less parking downtown; however, he added that the project
parking shown does not reflect mixed -use needs. He supported the possibility of a
contemporary design if it was respectful of the historic architecture.
On motion by Commr. Ehdaie seconded by Commr. Palazzo, to continue the pro act to
with surrounding structures.
3. The proiect materials palette shall be simplified in terms of the number of different
materials proposed.
Seventh Day Adventist Church and visible from Osos Street.
6. _Incorporate windows which are symmetrical and proportional to building walls.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 15, 2013
Page 5
AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Palazzo, Curtis, Hopkins, Wynn, McCovey-Good, and
Duffy
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote
Chairperson Duffy recused himself from Item #2 and left the meeting, because he
shares an office with the architect who prepared the project plans. Vice -Chair
McCovey-Good assumed the role of Chairperson for this item.
2. 907 Rachel Court. ARC 74-13; Architectural review of plans for 17 single-family
residences on a vacant property with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration;
R-2-S zone; MI SLO TERRACE, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval
of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Commr. Curtis asked who was to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr.
Carloni stated staff prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the final approval of
the ARC.
Commr. Curtis asked about unit floor plans for the lots that would have Secondary
Dwelling Units (SDU) questioning if owners who opted out of a Secondary Dwelling Unit
could turn the SDU space into another bedroom. He also asked if parking was provided
for the SDUs. Mr. Carloni stated slope/density standards would only allow a two -
bedroom residence on the lots with optional Secondary Dwelling Units and that a SDU
does not count towards maximum density. He also stated a third parking space will be
provided in the driveway of properties with a SDU, per City standards.
Joel Snyder, applicant's architect, stated the project's goal was to limit grading and
provide modest -sized homes that are suitable for this type of hillside development and
the designs are compatible with surrounding home styles. He indicated the developer
has volunteered to provide a trailhead east of the cul-de-sac retaining wall and
discussed the design of the retaining wall and how a portion of the length of the wall
exceeds maximum retaining wall height per the Community Design Guidelines but the
remaining portions of the wall taper downward to meet grade.
Commr. Palazzo asked if there is any landscaping plan provided for the lot to remain
vacant. Mr. Snyder indicated a landscape plan was provided for individual lots but not
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 6
specifically for the lot to remain vacant. Mr. Carloni added that condition #14 identifies
landscaping requirements for the project site.
Commr. Curtis asked what portions of the cul-de-sac retaining wall would exceed the
six-foot height limit. Truitt Vance, applicant's engineer, indicated about twelve feet of
the wall will exceed six feet in height.
Commr. Curtis asked if the plans included home styles to be placed on specific lots. Mr.
Snyder indicated the plans provide two architectural styles with five unit types and the
plans indicate which home styles are to be placed on each lot.
Commr. Wynn asked about noise from the adjacent railroad. Mr. Snyder explained a
noise report concluded the site is outside the noise level requiring specific noise
mitigations for exterior noise and current construction requirements ensure interior noise
is compliant with City standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Vanessa Wigton, SLO, expressed concern about the trailhead location adjacent to her
home and ongoing maintenance. She questioned the height of proposed street trees
and potential view impacts.
Don Wigton, SLO, stated that he likes the project, but is concerned with maintenance of
the proposed trailhead. He expressed his appreciation of the low building heights
proposed by the developer for protecting views.
LeeAnn Miller, SLO, stated that a neighboring home has been having soil trouble, and
the home is experiencing some sliding. She added a concern about the Secondary
Dwelling Units becoming rental units and asked about the number of years the low
income housing unit would remain an affordable unit.
Eve Drew, SLO, expressed concerns about the site's soil condition and increased
parking on Florence Street.
Ric Paul, SLO, supported the design of the project and felt that it is a great fit for the
area. He had concerns about soils and the drainage and felt there needs to be
maintenance agreements for the site's drainage infrastructure.
Eric Daniels, SLO, noted concerns with the site drainage due to the present soil
instability issues in the neighboring Leland Terrace development, the proposed trailhead
location, and lighting affecting the viewsheds of the neighbors.
Mr. Carloni addressed a few of the questions and concerns of the public. First, he
indicated lots with optional Secondary Dwelling Units (SDU) could not become rental
properties due to an owner occupancy requirement placed on properties with SDUs and
that proposed parking for SDU properties is consistent with City standards. He indicated
that the deed restriction on affordable units is for approximately 30 years. He noted the
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 7
project's proposed exterior lighting will need to conform to the City's Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance.
Commr. Curtis asked how the project will maintain the proposed drainage system,
without a Homeowners Association and asked if any drainage easements are proposed.
Hal Hannula, Supervising Civil Engineer, responded that staff has a long list of
conditions about maintenance agreements. Mr. Hannula addressed other questions
that had been asked relating to grading and drainage. He mentioned the City has
lighting standards that require LED lighting of the lowest wattage possible for residential
neighborhoods. He addressed the concern about the street trees indicating all street
trees have to be selected from a pre -approved City list of trees that are height restricted.
Commr. Curtis asked about the location of the trailhead. Mr. Carloni pointed out a
general trailhead location and indicated the applicant would need to provide a final
trailhead design to the final approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Commr. Palazzo asked if there is anything preventing the trail head from being between
lots 17N and 18N. Mr. Carloni indicated Planning Department regulations would not
prevent a trailhead in that location.
Commr. Wynn indicated support for the project, because it provides housing that fits
with the neighborhood. He would like the applicant to provide a little more individuality
between units.
Commr. Hopkins stated that he is in support of the project, because the project will be a
great improvement to the neighborhood. He also expressed his concerns about the soil
and drainage within and around the site, but was content with conditions of approval
requiring the applicant to follow the recommendations of the soils reports.
Commr. Ehdaie supported the project noting particular support of the affordable aspects
to the project. She supported a change to the trailhead location.
Commr. Curtis recommended that any future development of the lot to remain vacant be
reviewed by the ARC. He stated that the presented architectural styles are very
appropriate for the area and existing neighborhood.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn seconded by Commr. Palazzo to adopt the draft
2. Modify Condition 6 to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph, which reads:
"For the Farmhouse style homes on Lots 2. 4 & 7, there shall be a materials change
as presented at the meeting with board and batten siding on the upper portion of
the wall and stucco below."
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 8
3. Modify Condition
"Street tree specie
4. Change the first s
to serve Lot 16N."
5.
recommends that the trailhead be relocated internal to the proiect site. between
Lots 16N & 17N."
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Palazzo, Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Duffy
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3, Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast — Pam Ricci provided a forecast for upcoming agendas.
4. Commission: There were no speck communications to report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Kyle Bell,
Recording Secretary