HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1988, 3 - ARC 87-118: APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A REMODEL, ADDITION, AND CONVERSION OF TWO HOUSES TO OFFICES, ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF BROAD STREET BETWEEN PACIFIC AND PISMO STREETS. A MEETING DATE:
11111I�pp 1111IIJI111 Cl .� of san LUia ompo —16—
niis
COONL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMSER:
FROM: Michael u tare, Community Development Director Prepared by Jeff Hoo
SUBJECT: ARC 87-118: Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission approval of a remodel,
addition, and conversion of two houses to offices, on the southwest side of Broad
Street between Pacific and Pismo Streets.
CAO RECOMN�NOATION:
A ter considering the original staff report and recommendation, Commission's action,
hearing minutes,appellant's,testimony, and any public testimony, uphold or deny the
appeal as deemed appropriate.
BACTR SSION
The applicant wants to convert two small houses in the O zone to offices. At its January
11th meeting, the Architectural Review Commission granted final approval to the project
with staff to approve building and landscape details and final color selection. That
approval has been appealed by neighbors (appeal attached).
The key issues are neighborhood compatibility and access. In evaluating the project,
staff felt that that parking was workable in the front or rear yard. Parking in the rear
yard would be more consistent with the prevailing residential character along Broad
Street between Pacific and Buchon Streets. However parking in the front yard yielded
several advantages: improved access and circulation, more street yard landscaping before
street widening, and allowed a large existing tree to remain.
The ARC considered the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative site plans -- Plan
A with parking in the street yard, and Plan B with parking in the rear yard-- before
finally supporting plan A. The majority of commissioners felt that the compatibility
concerns resulting from street yard parking could be adequately resolved with landscape
screening, appropriate architectural detailing and careful color selection.
Previous Review
In addition to four ARC hearings, the project was also considered at an administrative
hearing on August 21, 1987. The hearing officer approved a use permit to allow
conversion of a houses to offices, and a variance to allow zero setback where 15 feet is
normally required (conditions and minutes attached).
At its first review of the project on August 3, 1987 the commission reviewed three site
plan alternatives (Exhibits A, B, and C attached). Plan "C" with a driveway through the
center of the lot to parking in the rear was discarded as being unworkable.
During the commission's August 17th schematic review, most commissioners initially
favored the alternative which kept the buildings and landscaping adjacent to the street
and parking in the rear. Plan B, with parking in the rear yard, was schematically
approved at that meeting.
At its November 9th meeting, the ARC reconsidered its previous action and granted
schematic approval to a revised plan A showing parking in the street yard. The majority
felt that plan B could result in parking and access problems, and noted that an
unattractive fire wall would be required along the northwest property line due to a zero
building setback in plan B.
1►►111111I@I 0111111 city or sal i tins OBISPO
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Both site plans A and B meet the city's parking and driveway standards. However plan B
could result in awkward or unsafe parking maneuvers since the 10-foot wide driveway would
allow only one car to pass at a time. Entering motorists might have to back out into
Broad Street to allow cars to exit from the project.
Plan A, with parking next to Broad Street, would change the spacing and pattern of
buildings at a gateway to the Old Town neighborhood. Although this block of Broad Street
is office-zoned, most of the properties retain a residential character. Although this
would not be the first project with street yard parking (three out of 11 properties
between Pacific and Pismo Streets have parking lots adjacent to Broad Street), it would
extend the commercial "look", more typical of Marsh Street properties, closer to
residential neighborhoods along Broad Street.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council upholds the appeal, the applicant will need to revise the project to
resolve neighborhood compatibility concerns. It is likely that site plan changes will
also require architectural changes, necessitating additional design review.
If the council denies the appeal, the ARC's action to approve the project with parking in
the street yard would stand. This would allow the applicant to proceed with the
project. Conditions of ARC approval require building colors, details, and landscaping to
be approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
RECOMMENDATION
After considering commission and public testimony, minutes, and previous staff reports,
the council should deny or uphold the appeal as deemed appropriate.
The commission's final approval of plan A was the result of a weighing the advantages and
disadvantages of the applicant's two site plan alternatives. Other alternatives are
possible, but would involve removal of one of the houses or more substantial redesign and
cost to reconcile the conflicting concerns of improved architectural compatibility with
better access. The commission's decision was a difficult one, involving largely
subjective judgements about neighborhood character, architecture, and site planning.
Given these factors, staff believes the council should be guided by the commission's
deliberations as well as neighbor concerns. Both alternatives are workable with minor
changes and refinements during the building plancheck stage.
ATTACHMENTS
-Draft Resolutions
-ARC Staff Report
-Letter from Applicant
-ARC-Approved Plan (Plan "A")
{Plan "B")
-Plan "C"
-ARC Minutes
-Use Permit and Variance
jh:3/ARC87-118 V
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO APPROVE THE CONVERSION OF TWO HOUSES TO OFFICES,
ARC 87-118, AT 1335 AND 1337 BROAD STREET.
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission and City Council have held public
hearings on this request for architectural approvals of the conversion of two houses to
offices in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal from neighbors of the proposed
project, and the council has considered staff reports, commission minutes, applicant and
public testimony, and materials submitted by the appellants and the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to deny the
appeal and uphold the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to
ARC 87-118 with the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed project is architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures
and is appropriate at the proposed location.
2. Alternative Plan "A" will result in safer vehicular ingress and egress for the
project and allow a substantial landscape buffer along Broad Street to screen the
parking lot.
3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
Conditions:
1. Larger-sized plant materials shall be used to screen the parking area to Community
Development Department staff.approval.
2. Building colors shall be restudied including the use of "warmer" colors to Community
Development Department staff approval.
3. Chimneys and front windows shall be redesigned to the approval of the Community
Development Department staff.
3-3
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
(!)ministrative Officer
City Att ney
Community Development Director
. 3.4
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO APPROVE THE CONVERSION OF TWO HOUSES TO OFFICES,
ARC 87-118, AT 1335 AND 1337 BROAD STREET.
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission and City Council have held public
hearings on this request for architectural approvals of the conversion of two houses to
offices in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal from neighbors of the proposed
project, and the council has considered staff reports, commission minutes, applicant and
public testimony, and materials submitted by the appealants and the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to uphold the
appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to ARC
87-118 with the following findings:
1. The proposed project is architecturally incompatible with the surrounding structures
and is not appropriate at the proposed location.
2. The proposed project will conflict with the established pattern and spacing of
buildings along Broad Street at a gateway to the Old Town Neighborhood, a
residential area with an.established and distinctive historical character.
3. The proposed project is likely to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
On motion of . seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3•�
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City Att ney
Community Development Director
RECEIVED
��III��III�IIIIIIIQIp� 111
JAN 201988IoaspoCit OA
® ySa►�'1 �,11S
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of-ljle Q.1h•C. Vor 1335 }1337 BrondST rendered
on JAm . 11. 19 W which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
1. �� lo�of+ o� ��. bu�ldinc� is noT .n Keep�nc,
W� nevc�hboolneocl osv�delanes , �-lo. IOw,ldi,n� Ls sem
to "VX K ear el�
.Lb ve�� lA, [le. l e ",b nc� b e,InA r�a4 1�
5 -b&C)P- To
3• 'Ta ' Color p� .t� v+w U�S`b� �a�ic a, wvv-K �,ronT
'FronT L6 IDIo ckt. '1'ki a Color ►S c�o� `may Cm 1-. D� o ��rvj r, e
G.reC�, VIE�h-'Ter C'eler %. beuJeli 1.-tc d'e�u►vcc�
The undersigned discussed the decision being appelfled from with:
on
Appellant:
�1�.
Name/Title
RECEIVED p. TA(A mew0oju�
JAN 2 0 1988 Representative
GTS CLERK
SAN LUISOBOBISPO.CA &57 Pt3mo Wt-
Address
rtAddress
5D$D
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cal dared for: '� :��' Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
_jam-,r-.,� _ �;.,� � i'-1• r�i� /-lam
City Clerk
• 3-7
O r
AA
O
_ .,:, ti 's ••n y 14
=O �0k 1 O
IL
O �
pd'ti O
d �
♦ Y':• .� p
's.
Op ,,,s O
:•' ��r.� of � . �^ � •... - � 1
Iii O
a hlit
u� 1l11111 city o f San tur�OBISpo DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
A�nl,:tani�'ii A"eY;eN �9�� 6sl9$ d8tltl@fy 11, 1988
t ETING DATE
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner 2
BY ITEM NO,
1335 and 1337 Broad Street ARC 87-118
PROJECT ADDRESS FILE N0,
SIBJECT: Remodel, addition, and conversion of two houses to offices, on the southwest side of
Broad Street between Pacific and Pismo Streets.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Final Approval subject to staff approval of site, building, and landscape details.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant has submitted revised plans and requests final approval of plan "A."
At its November 9th meeting, the commission granted schematic approval to alternative
site plan "A" which showed the parking lot adjacent to the street and the buildings
located at the rear of the lot. The commission had previously granted schematic approval
to site plan "B" which showed the parking lot behind the buildings, but reconsidered its
action due to the applicant's concerns with meeting setback requirements under plan B.
An administrative use permit and a variance were approved on August 21st, allowing the
offices and reduced street yard from 15 feet to 0 feet. The use permit was intended to
allow either site plan "A" or "B" (use permit and variance attached). A lot
combination will also be required.
EVALUATION
Proiect Changes
The site plan shows only minor changes from the plan which received schematic approval on
November 9th. Changes include:
1. Stairwell has been shifted away from the parking lot about eight feet, and a stair
screen with landscaping added.
2. Chimneys relocated to the Broad Street side of the second story addition.
3. Screened trash area added in rear yards.
4. Side elevations revised to reflect minor floor plan changes.
5. Site details and landscaping are shown.
Staff Concerns
Given this site plan, the project's neighborhood compatibility will depend largely on
final detailing, colors, and landscaping.
117-80 3—�
Staff Report
Page 2
Some important details continue to be vague, and several design concerns remain. Staff
suggests that the following issues be addressed:
1. Relocation of chimneys to front elevation and angled window design appears forced
and out of context with the houses' original design. Side-mounted chimneys and
mullioned windows in the gable ends would be more compatible with prevailing
neighborhood architectural character.
2. Window materials, design, colors and trim should be discussed.
3. Design details of entry trellises and the stair screen. Staff suggests use of a
heavy duty lattice to allow plants to climb on the screen, and to minimize long term
maintenance.
4. Front yard landscaping would benefit from additional variety in form and colors. A
slightly lower hedge plan (3-4 ft. height) is suggested to screen parked cars while
allowing views of building from Broad Street.
5. Trash storage in rear yard is impractical, and as a result, dumpsters often remain
unscreened in parking lots. An enclosure could be located in the front planter
area, adjacent to the parking lot. This may also provide an opportunity for
signage, with the 4 ft. fence and landscaping for partial screening.
6. Signage isn't shown. A low monument-type sign in the street yard may be
appropriate.
7. Staff suggests that London Plane Tree be used for street trees to give a horizontal,
open spreading effect. Street trees will need to be located so as to allow for
future street widening.
8. Stair location adjacent to the large Tree of Heaven may pose hazards to tree roots.
A tree protection bond will be required, and special measures will be necessary to
protect the tree during and after construction.
9. A color board will be available at the meeting. Staff questions the use of a black
("charcoal") accent trim on windows, doors, and latticework. A lighter color trim
may be more compatible with neighboring Victorian homes.
RECOMMENDATION
This is the fourth time this item has been reviewed by the commission. With specific ARC
direction on the above issues, further review shouldn't be necessary. Provided the above
issues can be resolved, staff supports final approval with details to return for staff
approval.
ATTACHMENTS
-Vicinity Map
-Developer's Statement
-ARC Minutes
-Schematic Approved Plans, 11/9/87
300to
DEVELOPERS STATEMENT
< Ian)
At theme-9, 1987 AR.C.meeting,schemaatic approval was granted to
site the buildings toward the rear of the parcel, with parking in front. The
commission requested further study be directed toward the stairway ., in
order to diminish it's overall visual impact on the project. I have worked
with staff to mitigate the concerns expressed by the AR.C. , by redesigning
the stairway around and behind the existing and predominant "free of
Heaven% and to hide the stairway from the street view by providing
screening (typical of the fence and railing detail)and the addition of a
planter in front of said stairway screening.The 2 story restroom structure
was moved back flush with the rear wall of the building to facilitate the
stairway relocation.
A screened trash area has been provided at the rear of each ground floor
office,and Bike spaces were relocated adjacent to the stairway.
The fireplaces and chimneys of the 2nd floor offices were relocated,
providing for a better street elevation.
I feel the project, as submitted, retains the residential character compatable
with the neighborhood characteristic,as directed by the ARC,meets all of
the conditions and requirements as specified by planing,and has the
unanimous support of all the contiguous land owners.
I respectfully request that the commission grant final approval for this
project.
. L-*- —
-
D immit,Applicant and Owner
3• fl
DEVEMPERS STATEMENT
TWO DIFFERENT SITE PLANS (A AND B) WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FLOOR PLAN, ARE
RE-SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION. THE SITE COVERAGE FOR EACH PLAN IS 23%, WHERE
50% IS THE ALLOWABLE IN THE OFFICE ZONE (THE EXISTING SITE COVERAGE IS 30%).
BOTH PLANS (AND THE RESPECTIVE EXCEPTIONS REQUIRED FOR EACH) HAVE BEEN REVIEWED
BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND HE HAS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR EITHER
PLAN. THE PRIMARY ISSUE SEEMS TO BE WHETHER TO RELOCATE THE BUILDINGS TO THE
REAR OF THE LOT AND SITE THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS, OR LEAVE THE
BUILDINGS WHERE THEY ARE (RELOCATE 1335 1'-6" OFF THE PROPERTY LINE) AND SITE
THE PARKING LOT BEHIND THEM. THE OWNER PREFERS SITE PLAN A (RELOCATE BUILDINGS),
BUT WILL ACCEPT EITHER PROPOSAL, AS DIRECTED BY THE A.R.C. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
ARE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IN THE EVALUATION OF EACH PLAN.
SITE PLAN A
BY RELOCATING THE BUILDINGS TO THE REAR OF- THE LOT, THE HEAVY TRAFFIC NOISE
GENERATED FROM BROAD ST. (ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENT OF THE PLANNED STREET
WIDENING) WOULD BE MINIMIZED AND BUFFERED BY THE PARKING LOT. THE PARKING LOT
WOULD BE SCREENED (EXCEPTING THE ENTRY) BY EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING ( TREES, AND
GERMING) AND THE STREET YARD LANDSCAPING IS INCREASED BY 3 FT. IN DEPTH OVER THE
EXISTING 18 FT DEPTH. THIS PLAN PROVIDES THE BEST PARKING PLAN AND ENTRY/EXIT
CIRCULATION FROM BROAD.
ALL THREE CONTIGUOUS LAND OWNERS, WHILE IN SUPPORT OF EITHER PLAN TO UPGRADE THE
PROPERTY, PREFER THE PARKING LOT IN FRONT MORE THAN IN THE REAR BECAUSE OF THE
NOISE FACTOR AFFECTING THEIR PROPERTIES (RESIDENTIAL TO REAR, AND OFFICE ON EACH
SIDE).
THE TREE OF HEAVEN IS PRESERVED.
THE EXISTING STREET PATTERN OF BUILDINGS (LOCATED CLOSE TO THE STREET) IS
AFFECTED.
SITE PLAN B
THIS PLAN WILL BEST MAINTAIN THE EXISTING STREET PATTERN OF BUILDING PROXIMITY
TO STREET, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF AN INFERIOR PARKING PLAN (ESPECIALLY WITH THE
ENTRY/EXIT TO BROAD ST. ) AND A LESS DESIRABLE FLOOR PLAN FOR 1335 (LOSS OF
WINDOWS DUE TO THE REQUIRED FIREWALL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE).
BOTH MAJOR TREES WOULD BE LOST, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT REGARDED AS PRIZE
SPECIMENS AND ARE LOCATED TOWARD THE REAR OF THE LOT. THE NEW STREET TREES
PLANNED FOR IN FRONT WOULD PROBABLY MITIGATE THIS LOSS.
IN SUMMARY, I HAVE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF,AND THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE DESIGN
SOLUTION TO UPGRADE THIS PROPERTY, AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THE TWO PROPOSALS FOR
CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION. AS TO WHICH, YOU AS A BOARD, FEEL BEST MEETS THE
NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
JIM DUMMIT, OWNER AND DEVELOPER
8/10/87
r
a N
O 6<
'1 S O d 0 ti 9
. y
W
3NI1 AlZ3dONd ' °C w
.0-.09 eo d
' a W
. u
.0-.z AYAWHO -0-.9z $;
,1 at .0-.91 N = 3�'
- s
_ 4 �
; S
;7an�a v 7�N7e a � 0
Lai
' H101M A1�6 ; —
r
a
! z
' ct o S m Z
e _U
d '� a Z V Gi
, O Q
Q 'Q = fl C Q V m
i
. m i
'J11d�N1�'I ' o
„ 9i00)
IdY790NY1
a
L 6
CL
/ . •_ . V
Iuj
' W
p J 1
W —
d i C
CL B ,
tL
' as
♦ _ r
.........;5t :: b
..:
W _a Lu
EXHIBIT A
� a �
Z OC
h u 6 a y N
M
3- �3
-IOlt16 dGlt16• ......
---- - ---�NIOI flJ� alJiilJJJ1lJ:
1
t*tbEll
�wwj�tSl?-6
HANDICAP _ �::::•--
•-111. .. Y.-.-.•..-..��.
••-Y.•:It•::.:•::. J
.1113 4 ':1�..��1�0�•� i`,
Jp I
'+!t!i!:!iiiiisiiliiiiiiiiiitikii!i:ia�ljiR!ii:i:�iiii!i:liiiiiiiiiiiiet. .atl+tlii:ii - •::
eiiiEiiciEii !j:j:i:ti;:;:;: i@i:•;:::: :i:i :t:;:;�•...... -'�::• t•:•{::}• i:;:-: YICIwITf MAP
j 'i' !iiii :i!ijii�i!ii;:5:::;ir : :•::>'!ii:e•; .:. .•.Y:'sY:.}•-::�•:•:•:. AOOA:Ilii
:C[il![i;i::i:iiititets::t. .•:. •:•:•::• :..:....
!iigiiitieltisiti[ilii•iii
fiillF;i,•:•tiijiiiijjiliiliii:t.liijijiili:isisilT!t!tiiii!i:i!iitiiiiii!ililiilNitl!tr!i t t
1i�i :::?iiiiiii; :is1�i�:.[:i[::! ::::::•:2;:;:t::..;.:: •....•..;/ t t p
:iiji11i1i;:M.1 :.�:1�:'••
:=i1!i!�i�'1:::..: :!:!::i:.:.iiiiiii'.::.:�"':tet: "'!!!;'••:�:::;[ia;:
::i:lt.........t.... ....: : +ggii[ ! ti ...: /,.. • t
'•i!iii�(tii�i!i:':,iii il��ij'1'V S� iiil[!ii:i....... :••. j"'•?:i.i{.�•:
iiiii'.•ii:!i ii:i::1.•:.e i i iiiii.iiii:i'.•ii'i'.•' 1:::a,F;i: ....
....•
!![I:t:111?It?:liiii�iiiasM
• 'i:i:i[i:i ::!ioi:i I;Iii=i �':SS 1
?n•IT V►S!iNry '.%Ilt�ll :ieiiii ::•.'.'.'
:•:--: Y.•:
8316 letl6 :}}{
CQRAtT Clt1PALT iiietti tti!iti!iiiii: iti :'-:��:n• .
BIKE ��...I.e.:.l.l••. ::=�:::i':
:::!: !:�!:!:!:!: !:!:!:!:!;•.:!:::�!::i:::a]::�::::�i+. 1::+:1'?::e•�1 1[.1. :::• :is 1 .�I...:.t.e..
'•:!.� t t :e:!e:s:;e!I!let!i!+;1!+:ge!etsi;!t!:ret:::.:.11:itl:IN:?:t:•:1:.t::::::.:t:.:.:::.::�:ii:i:i: ti
..::t.;!.::::;
titiiiit!i'i 'i'iti'i:t :i t't:i: ii •':'::t:i i'i: :S :.::::.: ::i::::.:::::: ; 5:::::.:::::!?e' ..�>DRIVEIIIAY!
•o-t.:i,::s:....:t:..s.:Iles:;...+1...>•a�:s!:!:•1!:1:.:!:.e:!!:!:!:� !::::e;i?!:++i !:!�:t e:e:�°e:!:j:iy':tt:i jciiti :t:j... i:t:i:i•
� � ilii itikiwiitijlRiyii� i � i '"iii mit •'i:"""''"'i""'�'� '
•:¢I:......:::.v�;�?��� w���� ;i�� i �iiticj iii
i
tiitiiiititt iiiiiiii 'iiit!ttiiiti! ilii :i•t :ttiic ji ttS:. ..•1......
e.e.:.::.:.........�t..:.s:.:::..::.esr:taxa:::t:::::s:s::::i::::;::::�: '::[:t;•::i;,• .iiiiiitiiitii iiiiiiii"...:ti
......:::�.:.:r.:.:.:;•:1,?I;Ita!+;t::?+;e!t;el:t:?aj!�!c?i+iti!t!'!:!:i?2i4ej:::; •.. ,:....•1.....:...:t•:<•:;:;i't;; ...:.
t1Y•
SITE PLAN B
GROSS BURRING 2200 SQ FT
ME AM--5M SM M
SITE COVERAGE 230
X _ PTIONS
1)STREET YARQ--REDUCE FROM 15'TO C'FOR BUILDING
2)ONE SIDE YARD crn I:E FROM V TO I.6'(WITH FIREWALL)
3)10'DRIVEWAY FOR 0 CAR SPACES AND 1 FOR BIKES
EXHIBIT B
Jim Dummit Enterprises
I=LwW w
3- 14
a
w
� o
s
ROLAND C. MADDALENA, INC.
REAL ESTATE AND MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS
1329 BROAD STREET•SAN Luis OsisM cAumRNu 93401 •(805)543.9312
RouND G 1Yu►coALENA
RAUM
Architectual Review Commision
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: 1335-1337 Broad Street
Jim Dummit Project.
Dear Commisioners:
I am the owner of 1329 Broad Street, which is adjacent to the
Dummit project. My preferance of the two alternative proposals is to
relocate the present structures to the rear of his property; and
provide for a landscaped parking area in front. This is a more
favorable alternative because it will give both of our properties a
more 'Open space" feeling.
I hope that the removal of that awful avacado tree is in the
plans. Because of it I must sweep the adjacent walkway daily and
unplug my rain gutter several times yearly.
Thanks for your consideration.
i
Yo rs sincerely,
RO A, INC.
Rol nd C. Madda
RCM/lj
3- I�
..
_,%%.
_..,. .
r '" _ .. _
r. rJ' - - .._.
!' -.- Y t .. .--. - .. ... .
:'....' _ .. _ . . ... _ -
.. .-.. _ _ . .. -
::.
:r.:_.c.__._ _ - _ .. ..... _ -
a... .. .,::. ..
._.. ..: r. _ ..
_...q.'. fir' -. :. v._:.. .:.' .b � _ _ _ _ .. _ _..
.-... . .. . . .... _. . _ .
_ .._.. .....: ..._ .. . -
-- ----- _ . ... _ . .. .
.
I.
_
_-..._... ....._:. _ V - ..
.. ;::_..
;.. _.
.: ...:l' _ _. .. .. .
_. -
.. _- .. ......-
Ta :Whom_'It MayF Concern:
_:'.._
—.._r .r:.. .. I _ -... .., __ _-
. r ,
_r 11..4• _ - .. ..
, ;"Mp , roperty aid F.fiouse abuts the Broad Street propertX Mr: Dummit
I:, is ,at temptingao develop. into ..an office complex.+- I - .. _ .
._ . _
r.
=_I :have.;r.evi'ewed the. various plans £cr,vthO property, with. Mr 'Du= .
andi% concur- with. his preferred::pian to,,p�,ace. the buildings :to the .
'reai"of the .:property with parking.,in the :front. > " - -
..._.. _ _ -
__......—,...,., . ,..'. __ ..
_ ......:...... .....
a: _
feels `his:'-:effort. to .upgrade .the buildings_aa : landscapes the -
::;.p=.operty, will be: an asset to- the co"Murdty 'and the neighborhood
.
.. _..... .
. x _ - _. - -
.._ ..._.: ._.. - _ _ .
..._:..-.- ... ....... _
.....
... .. - _
........ f..... .. .. I, .." _ ....
....... _ '.:_:.....:...
. ..._. :. _ _ .. - -
--_.. .. .. -1 r . . ...1 :..�� _ ___ :.IJ: ..
': _a . ..r .. _ 'n ,.1
_.._ ... '
r-�—_.0 �._ "L:-_� _ _.. : :� -I, ,IIx I _ 11 F .. ..
I
'I 'I J I
1.
� r1l jr- K, Ph 1]�ips-, Architect
�I
;.._ _
,'-:'676 P.isma-- Street ... .._. ..
% " ..
=" San Luis Obispo r C1 , ; 93401
.. :.-... ..... .. ... .. .
----_.... ._ .. .. ..... . _ .
.
�..:. . _ _
- - -
_.. .... ..... . . . -
__.. . _...:.::....::r
._
._.. _..
_.. ._.. .. ... .. - -
�. t.
.
-. ..a_ .....__._ - . . .-. - .
:
.... . ._ . ..._ _ _ _ _ _ . .
-.. .::.:: - _ _ - _ __ -- _ .
.. __.... .. .. ... .x ...... _ _ - -- _ _
. _.. .. _..1._.1 .:._ _� _
I '.. .. .. .......
....... _ . ._. .. : _ _ _ _ - _
... J.J_:..�_.__....M. _ .... ... .._ .
- - _ --- . .. -.
......
...... __...'.x....... .. - - - -
.;
... . .. ..: .. ._ . . .
_ _ _
J.
_ .... ... - _ ..
. _...i _
�. .__' ...... :. •..:• _. _
_ ::�___ ... .._ L: ...
_ ..... .. ....,
r .. .
. ... • _ _ L.
....I..::. . _. ... .
...
.-. C. ..
x - ... . I
.. 4 I t , -
v :.'. _ _
_ I, r _
X1..1 mss. - I[ 1 I.. .,
__
..._.. u._F-�- - L. -
-.5• 3 �• r - _ - J _ _ _ _
.._ } .: ..
2 a. , .. : _
_ y.'j'IY - _ _
..^11.' `ern' Pl _.... - 1
�' .•' 4 T L ,. rl
�qd.. �.'a=' r2 �. ,..
1.�Y �~� F SJ 1 I I _
i
T i�4r '�'�y�' Y f ��'t 1 F I r +.Fm C N 5 5V JI01�J 1•+1 a
1 .2 r if�Jwln{i�t..y�.nL'r�u�n. x'�.��I:,yY'S'd I I rl { J�,yyL,ll� M1l'*y„ti'�..� :nW f...l YW.1 I4z lde+e r� =17��
__..,C _-' 4- -� +1•�Yi "L �� k •�1 a.1_L�...4..J.i�'1lxr�:-I1 t I >1 Yl}'ll q' �• .W.�al.-r it3 of �, i _
Y ,�a,..r, Li Iy4 .._C • J• 3 1 11L%�-�I"�'i'k:ll .I rJ t �ryy1k�1.M'Nr _14 T,:I: _I I
r-`�tS 1`. - -I.I.
� !t�y Lia.` 3� nl . I r I Em im, �l Y qyt _ 7_• J L
:+'.,CL 1 rC�y. 7r-} 1� . II� 1 3+.t Cpl ly:ll gF'4"I "r'- v yl ail^ _
Y r
jr^ ~'% 1rFT yr.l i -F 1 1 In il a. , 4 Yr
r
.."I.I.." vS It Tr��rr•••��. t �,I T^\ I r r 7� . iJ I... LL
q�s'j"IN4,^""' r 4 C4-L;_ 1 {_n.{r--L�. , I yap,>Ir i Y 'r a �---�i &wI.Ou1111 9 r t`
A
' y
. .C1.GI P . i r T f 4k fni] " 7 L ' tn• '�k 1 111, '. . . I J I�- k'Y s1
•Y } cY�11 _ 1 6 L ,j I 1 Y{I f,SI I- ,I T
t.. :�- 1y I I- ' 1 ' -W ri rIY�1 -i I ,1 d �.. I ..
W.. Ii 1 ._ ,L44 TI' Vlr L1• ti i -1If+ X .JJ I ..I
Si.I ;I - _ --
y.
::;_ �._... ... . ,:�;' -'�!`7��_� -. '7. . .:.. .:. ....... . ;�'- . .. _ . . 17.
....
. .
,� _.. _.....
Draft ARC Minutes
January 11, 1988
2. ARC 87-118: 1335 & 1337 Broad Street; remodel, addition, and convert houses to
offices; O zone; final review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval
subject to staff approval of site, building, and landscape details.
Jim Dummit, applicant, indicated that at the last meeting, the commission asked for a
restudy of the stairway element since it didn't seem compatible for a residential-type
neighborhood. He worked with staff and the final plan pulls the stair mass into and
around the tree and hides the stairway from the streetscape view with screening. This
brought about more internal changes, including the chimneys. It makes for better
elevations in the new locations. He responded to the staff report as follows: Mullion
windows - difficult shape and there really aren't any existing in a structure right now.
Window materials and design - adhere to existing architecture, but clean it up, use
single double-hung windows. Trellissing - agrees with staff, manufactured cut wood on
the side. Landscaping - variety of accent colors called out, which he feels are
adequate. If more is required, give him direction to work out the finished details.
Trash issue - he will use two of the offices as his own and will have no problem
maintaining trash with the green-wheeled dumpsters. Opposed to putting dumpsters out in
front. No signage proposed for property. Will have large street numbers instead.
Street trees - proposing to use what is now in neighborhood, but will go with whatever
the commission thinks is best. By building everything around the tree, he doesn't think
there is a need for the bond. Colors - if proposed colors are too strong or offensive,
he will work with staff to tone them down.
The fence is intended to provide screening while the bushes grow for a few years. Wanted
the same details used for the railings so there is continuity in the project. He wanted
a 5 foot screen to would buffer the project from street noise, but felt there was a
conflict in that a lower fence was preferred to offer visual penetration. He did not
feel that berming would be compatible solution.
Commr. Starr thought the front landscaping looked too formal. The planter materials can
be worked out with staff. With the addition of the chimneys, he thought the gable ends
appeared out character with the neighborhood. He preferred to see the chimneys relocated
to the back of the building so that they are not so prevalent in the front. He liked the
way the project had developed and felt keeping the trash in the rear was acceptable as
opposed to putting a dumpster in the setback.
Commr. Baur thought the hedge was a good solution and liked the revised plan as revised.
He supported the project.
Commr. Rademaker thought that the revised design causes problems for material changes on
the side elevations. He objected to the chimneys being located in front and was not
happy with the resultant window design. He thought the colors needed restudy, noting the
purples were very "cool" and suggested not blending it with the charcoal. He liked the
landscape design.
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
January 11, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Jones did not have a problem with proposed colors but felt that trash storage in
the rear may be impractical. He encouraged the applicant to build in a way to make sure
the trash was maintained in the back part of the building. He felt that a monument sign
was not appropriate for the building at this location. He suggested using larger plant
specimens to start for quicker fill-in. He felt that changing the paving material in the
parking lot would draw people back to the building. He liked the landscaping plan and
felt it was compatible with the neighborhood. He agreed with Commr. Rademaker regarding
the chimneys and suggested that the stovepipe be internal to the side wall.
Commr. Morris wanted the tree of heaven protected during construction and thought the
landscaping plan looked good. He suggested training a flowering vine, such as a
clematis, to grow up against the front of the building and stairway.
Commr. Cooper suggested the use of large plants and a 5-foot tall hedge in the front
planter. He agreed with other concerns regarding the chimneys and suggested the use of a
flat lintel for the gable end windows.
Mr. Dummit felt he could work with staff in revising the project to both his and the
commission's satisfaction.
Commr. Baur moved to grant final approval with direction to use larger-sized plant
material, to restudy the building colors using "warmer" colors, and with chimney and
front window redesign to be approved by staff.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Baur, Cooper, Jones, Morris, Rademaker, Starr
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
ARC Minutes
November 9, 1987
Page 5
PROJECTS:
1. ARC 87-118: 1335 & 1337 Broad Street; remodel addition and
convert houses to offices; O zone; final review.
Dave Moran, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending a continuance.
Jim Dummit, applicant, responded to the staff report, and indicated
the hip roof was removed per direction from the commission. He noted
that the requested variance was needed to preserve the building.
Commr. Pinard wanted the character of the neighborhood to be
maintained with parking located in the rear of the building. She
felt the stairwell in front would not work and be visibly intrusive
from a pedestrian's point of view. She felt 7 feet between the
buildings was acceptable. She could not support alternative A
(parking in front) .
Commr. Baur felt that plan A was acceptable and in scale with the
neighborhood. . He thought that landscaping would screen the
parking. He acknowledged that the site was difficult to develop.
Commr. Morris could not support plan A, but agreed that 7 feet
between the buildings was acceptable.
Commr. Starr preferred plan B but felt it was awkward. He felt
landscaping was critical to the project.
Commr. Cooper felt plan B was better. He thought that taller
buildings were acceptable if the parking was in front.
Commr. Jones preferred plan A. He wanted to see landscaped screening
in the parking area and the trees preserved.
Commr. Rademaker could support plan A but felt it would need heavy
landscaping. He felt the stairwell should be moved and the tree
saved.
Commr. Pinard moved to continue the project with direction to move
the front stairwell, clip eaves, and noted the commission's
preference for plan B.
Commr. Morris seconded the motion.
AYES: Pinard, Morris, Cooper
NOES: Baur, Jones, Rademaker, Starr
ABSENT: None
3 -2d
ARC Minutes
November 9, 1987
Page 6
The motion fails.
Commr. Baur moved to grant schematic approval of Plan A which has the
parking area in front of the building.
Commr. Rademaker seconded the motion.
AYES: Baur, Rademaker, Jones, Starr
NOES: Pinard, Morris, Cooper
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
4. ARC 87-132: 11590 Los 0 os Valley Road; remodel service-station
into convenience food st a with self-service gas sales; C-N
zone; final review.
Dave Moran, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending final approval.
Robert Drager, representative, esponded to the staff report and
wanted to retain the 25 foot pol sign. The identification sign
adjacent to the building would r duce visibility and may kill the
project. He did not agree with wering the sign to 12 feet.
Ray Alyshmerni indicated that a p lon sign would not work at this
location.
Commr. Rademaker felt that not muc signing was needed since most
people know it's location. He sug sted using a monument sign at
each entrance. He wanted the roof- ounted pylon sign to remain. He
preferred alternative A (brick with etal siding) with the roof color
to match the existing shopping cents .
Commr. Starr thought that two monumen signs were acceptable and
suggested the applicant reduce the la dscaping. He could support
either plan.
Commr. Jones preferred plan A with two onument signs and pylon sign
on the roof.
Commr. Morris thought that one monument ign was sufficient and
preferred plan A. He suggested eliminat ng the handicap parking
space to help traffic circulation.
3-21
ARC Minutes
August 17, 1987
Page 3
Commr. Rademaker moved to a prove the red accent color but to deny
the yellow accent color.
Commr. Pinard seconded motion.
AYES: Rademaker, P' ard, Baur, Cooper, Morris, Starr, Jones
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
2 . ARC 87-118: 1335 & 1337 Broad Street; remodel, addition, and
convert houses to offices; O zone; schematic review.
Dave Moran, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending the commission consider the revised site plan
alternatives and grant schematic approval.
Jim Dummit, applicant, responded to the staff report, and noted the
plan reflects changes suggested by the commission. He desired to
retain the buildings and preferred Alternative "A". He noted he has
received neighbor support for the project.
Commr: Rademaker felt that scheme "A" would result in a fire wall
which would be bad for the project. He hoped that the large trees
would be preserved.
Commr. Morris felt that both schemes have merit but preferred Scheme
B.
Commr. Baur felt that plan A provided more landscaping along the
street.
Commr. Starr preferred scheme B but felt plan A was also acceptable.
Commr. Jones felt Plan B was awkward, but could only support Plan A
if heavy landscaping was used to soften the parking lot. He also
hoped the "Tree of Heaven" could be preserved.
Commr. Pinard felt plan B was the only one which worked but felt it
wasn't the best solution.
Commr. Cooper also preferred Plan B. He wanted the setbacks to be
maintained but felt the trees could be removed.
���A.,01
ARC Minutes
August 17, 1987
Page 4
Commr. Pinard moved to grant schematic approval of Plan B which has
the parking area behind the buildings.
Commr. Starr seconded the motion.
AYES: Pinard, Starr, Cooper, Morris
NOES: Baur, Jones, Rademaker
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
3 . ARC 87-126: 864 Santa Rosa Stre ; remodel city recreation
center; PF zone; final review.
Dave Moran, Assistant Planner, pre nted the staff report,
recommending final approval with m difications as suggested by the
Cultural Heritage Committee.
Don West, representative, respon d to the staff report and indicated
the CHC had no objections to the remodel. He planned to maintain the
character of the structure and a color palette reflects those of
the neighborhood. He also note that coloring would reduce the
impact of the gym. He indicate that costs prohibited wood over the
metal trim.
Jim Stockton, Recreation Dire or, noted that wood would be too
costly to maintain.
Commr. Pinard noted this was a historical building which has not been
maintained. She suggested ing .wood windows and additional
detailing on the Santa Rosa elevation. The city should set an
example for other developer with this project.
Commr. Jones wasn't sure i stucco siding was appropriate and
suggested restoring it as t was originally if funding was
available. He supported taff's recommendation.
Commr. Starr suggesting sing wood on the Santa Rosa elevation but
stuccoing the rest of th structure and widening the chimney.
Commr. Rademaker was cc cerned with the proposed louvers and felt at
least four were needed. He suggested using wood over the window
frames and period land aping.
Commrs. Baur and Morr' supported staff's recommendation.
ARC Minutes
August 3, 1987
Page 8
Commr. Pinard felt the project was acceptable, but noted that the new
units were actually two bedrooms. She indicated that parking was
sufficient for the actual two-bedroom duplexes and existing houses
Commr. Rademaker discussed varying colors between the front and rear
units and suggested using darker, recessive colors for the rear
units. He also suggested using open rafter ends, rafter braces at
gable ends, and turned or tapered porch columns in the new units to
match the existing house.
Commr. Jones moved to grant final approval.
Commr. Morris seconded the motion.
AYES: Jones, Morris, Baur, Starr, Pinard, Rademaker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cooper
The motion passes.
i
6. ARC 87-118: 1335 & 1337 Broad Street; remodel, addition, and
convert existing houses to offices; O zone; conceptual review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending the commission take public testimony, evaluate site
planning alternatives, and make recommendations to the Hearing
Officer regarding the variance request.
Jim Dummit, applicant, and Terry Simons, representative, responded to
the staff report and explained that "Exhibit All was their proposal
and "Alternatives B and C" were prepared at staff's request.
Commr. Pinard felt more landscaping was needed. She noted this site
was transitional between residences and commercial and could not
support a variance request. She felt the parking lot should be in
the rear yard. She also felt parking was a problem due to the
proposed intensity of development.
Commr. Morris could not support parking in the street yard. He
preferred plan "B". He felt the Ailanthus tree was a nice specimen
but it would be okay to remove it.
Commr. Baur also preferred option "B". If parking is to be installed
in the street yard, he suggested using a wall or landscaping to hide
the parked cars.
3-2�
ARC Minutes
August 3 , 1987
Page 9
Commr. Starr felt plan "A" had layout problems and questioned if
sufficient space was available for parking lot landscaping after
street widening.
Commr. Jones also preferred plan "B" and agreed that parking was best
located in the rear yard.
Commr. Rademaker felt plan "A" was the most workable of the three,
but there may be another better alternative such as removing one
house with the remaining house enlarged to get additional floor area
with parking at the side or in the rear.
No action was taken by the commission but it was noted the commission
preferred an alternative plan which kept the buildings and
landscaping adjacent to the street with a new parking lot in the
rear.
7. ARC 87-113: 375 Los Cerros Drive; new house on sensitive site; ti
R-1-PD zone; final review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending a continuance with direction.
Jay Farbstein, applicant, responded to the staff report, and
explained the design decisions made. He presented letters of support
from neighbors Ken Bohlen and Greg Barker.
Stan Bell indicated the design was in keeping with the intent of the
City Council and supported the project.
Dick Zwiefel, neighbor, also supported the project.
Commr. Baur supported the project as proposed and felt the terracing
was acceptable.
Commr. Starr felt the building siting and height were acceptable but
was concerned with the height of the retaining wall.
Commrs. Pinard and Morris had no major problems with the proposal.
Commr. Rademaker liked the project. He suggested using painted
plaster on the retaining wall to reduce its -apparent mass.
Commr. Jones also liked the project and terracing. He. suggested
adding detaining and exposing the natural concrete for the retaining
walls.
3-25
�►i����iII�II�IIINllllllllllll����@Il►Iiiiii�I IcityOSal tuiS oBispo�
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
September 8, 1987
Mr. Jim Dummit
1555 Laurel Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Use Permit Application A 77-87
1335 & 1337 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Dummit:
On Friday, August 21, 1987, I conducted a public hearing on your
request to convert a residential use to an office use at the above
location. After reviewing the information presented, I took this
item under submission.
On August 31, 19871, I approved your request, based on the following
findings and conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the
vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning
ordinance requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
Conditions
1. At least six vehicle parking spaces, and five bicycle spaces
shall be provided on the site at all times.
2 . The parking lot shall be screened and landscaped. A screening
and landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development Department staff and Architectural Review
Commission. The screening and landscaping shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the approved plan.
Mr. Jim Dummit
September 8, 1987
Page 2
3. Office uses shall be of a low- or moderate-intensity nature and
as approved by the Community Development Director. Medical,
dental, chiropractic, or similar office uses shall be prohibited.
4 . The exterior architectural character of the existing buildings
shall be preserved, including wall framing, siding, windows, and
trim. Failure to preserve the existing buildings may be grounds
for use permit review, modification, or revocation.
5. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All
plant materials shall be maintained and .replaced as needed.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission
within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person
aggrieved by the decision.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not
established within one year of the date of approval, or such longer
time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit
shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible
renewal.
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hook at 549-7176.
Sincerely,
Kittot�
Ken Bruce
Hearing Officer
KB:bee
3-27
,
city of sAn tuis' oBispo
aid; 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
September 8, 1987
Mr. Jim Dummit
1555 Laurel Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Variance Application V1321
1335 & 1337 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Dummit:
On Friday, August 21, 1987, I conducted a public hearing on your
request to allow reduced street yard setback from 15 feet to 0 feet
for parking and reduced parking required at the above location.
After reviewing the information presented, I took this item under
submission.
On August 31, 1987, I approved your request, based on the following
findings and conditions:
Findings
1. There are circumstances applying to the site which do not apply
generally 'to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
specifically:
a. The site has a small area.
b. The site area is further reduced by a street planline
which reduces the lot depth by 12.5 feet.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege,
inconsistent with the limitation.upon other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning and unusual physical
characteristics.
3. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in
the vicinity.
4 . The variance will allow the retention of two existing houses
which contribute to the scenic and historic character of the
immediate neighborhood.
3-2�
Mr. Jim Dummit
September 8, 1987
Page 2
Conditions
1. Street yard setback shall not be less than six feet, measured
from the planline.
2 . other yard setbacks shall not be less than three feet.
3 . At least six vehicle parking spaces, and five bicycle spaces
shall be provided on the site at all times.
4. The parking lot shall be screened and landscaped. A screening
and landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development Department staff and Architectural Review
Commission. The screening and landscaping shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the approved plan.
5. The applicant shall grant to the city an irrevocable offer of
dedication for street right-of-way along entire Broad Street
frontage consistent with adopted city street planline.
6. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All
plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as needed.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission
within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person
aggrieved by the decision.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not
established within one year of the date of approval, or such longer
time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit
shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible
renewal.
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hook at 549-7176.
Sincerely,
'_ ._
Ren Bruce
Hearing Officer
RB:bee
3-�.q