HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1988, 3 & 2 & 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 & MODIFICATIONB OF TRAFFIC I dl� � 2EEi6G88TE
j�Ill city of san lues oiispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1Tq'"NUMB:
FROM: c ae 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 RECOM�DAo siaering 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.
BACTM USSION
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.
'�'���►►au���lp ► IIS city of sank s osi spo
=qgeiCOUNCIL 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 it 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 A_
-Use Permit and Variance
jh:3/ARC87-118
e -
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
ARRC 87-118 with the following findings and conditions:
Findines:
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:
City A ministrative Officer
City Att ney
Community Development Director
3•�
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:
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing_resoldtion was passed and adopted this _ _____ day of'_ --
1988.
Mayor -- ------ — --
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City Att _ney --
Community Development Director
a
RECEIVED
��uuul����lll� IIII �IIII91� JAN 2 01986
�IIIII�II�4 I� I IC,
oaspo
q
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'1'he. hlkC. 70r 1335+1337 BrondsT rendered
on 3 Ate - ll, 1`189 , 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�o�+ o� ane. bu►ldir� .s noTL;n Keep;nc�T
Wt nev�hbo+'lneecl C�1�UtdeUnCS , ►J IM�,f1� is sot
to `-fes x Y' aF' +V.L L4c7 W,'4-.. �0.v#S�r►g . tn�Yh2 �ro .
2 . are 't&> vev-� L�C�t l.e,v►dsCaQ,nr� by y1.�
Sed -b&t)ft- 'Lo cthsqr�Te.n �vonT o� els. btu�c9r�S
3• `T�,.o. ` Color per '�,. v�x� u,.s�bl.�. C.G�IG.Q. ww-Fi t.�... �,ron�
'From-C' Lb blo K. —T� o col or '1,% rod `ty,c aJ� e� o e �ltiv�j �• e
CLv-pta. A L+�hrter 'Color s4e„" 1rx ,rcc�
The undersigned discussed the decision being apple ed from with:
on
Appellant:
Name/Title
RECEIVE ® p. TA(A Mem'bens
JAN 2 0 1988 Representative
CITY
SM LUISSoelSPo.ca &57 PIom.o S- r
Address
511- 50$D
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cale d d for: %y_%E � Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
3-7
�`:,, : �`-� •� �,�� .•n•. =O `� fir` O I Y
p:
O
AL
CL
wr
VON
� • 1
to
q •a... :�
city of San WIS OBISpo DEVENOPMENT
S m y REPORT
A�n1.:fe"I ;.il Revilaw C: 3eauary 11, 1988
rOR ETING DATE
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner 2
BY ITEM N0.
1335 and 1337 Broad Street ARC 87-118
PROJECT ADDRESS FILE NO.
SLI JECT: 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 Chances
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.
117.90 3-q
1
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 N inutcs
-Schematic Approved Plans, 11/9/87
3-to
DEVELOPERS STATEMENT
< &Iovap�)
At the*ugast-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 its 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-Tree 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 AR.C,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.
4 Lz:3e—, -
Dummit,Applicant and Owner
3- tl
DEVELOPERS 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
60% IS THE ALLOWABLE IN THE OFFICE ZONE (THE EXISTING SITE COVERAGE IS 30x).
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 REM AND OFFICE ON EACH
THE TREE OF HEAVEN IS PRESERVED.
THE EXISTING STREET PATTERN OF BUILDINGS (LOCATED CLOSE TO THE STREET) IS
AFFECTED.
SITE PLANA
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 g�
'is aeons
H
3NI1 AINUCU .0-A9 o d w
1
.o-.zz AVM3nI80
1 .0-.91
-
-- -------- ------ - M ? rev
bbbb 1
1
• '
y
N101M A1q
r
1
1
C ! . 1
1
' � 1
1
1
1 W '
1 S '
1 OC O z
pe t`
PZ IL
U
1 p • = 1 1Wr = W
1 U d W p 1 V V > 8
>
i0 .O aD
1 1
1 7NIdY750Nr1 � o
n 911dY790NY1 1 '
' • e
1 1 1
111...
6
1
LU
ca
1 1 7 1 W 1
1
L
p 1
1 �
D'.
CL
W
1
96
1
.........
e..... ..........�.
t► _0-A9 a
in �►
a _ EXHIBIT Q
in U L d
h
3- �3
10x16 .ICa16• ---ftl
ION10NWWAF JfJJ1J11lJYJr,'JFfJJJJJ �
l, 1�t16 1g'�;;;,rl,y�iii?-6'•:•::
'� ._ •,} HANDICAP
+[tlt::l::::::ti:N:::11::i:l:::I:t:. ti,i:•�i.i':1'•l F••i i Y: :vh' i::�---•O :'.•'~i•{: VICIWITV IRAF
:.j��:i '•i t:!.i I.t.�?:::.its: rI•S•t•]•?'•
:.t:f.:..::r;l•+:.: 1:1::•i•.1' [..::.:ii::::.:::?i?i;lf'f•:;iiiiiiiiiii:�i iii], Y•���.�:��..:. UR xaxoe:tiif
.]. f •:?:iiiei ilii=iii;i:alS!;!;: i?ii:ii;;i;iiiiii;;l.�iiiii �ti}jA P
-f 4:1 ii
?if ::;?; :iiilil?iiili:ili;i;i;i;i;tit
;(rifiii?ifi:l?y!1?
;iei: iii'?i?i?i? i;i;..:: ..;? ;::.:•::.:::»:.:::•:•.,iii iii 1• .. :::
�i,e.l I N,!?l..?.lei[I:IFi,::;i%?�:.:.:/f.fk>::.........::•:•:•:•:•:•:�. � � ':
i'i'i s i i•''i:'i'i i.'i i,,iryw[�y??:�fi.ei+i?i;M!iiiii?Ni!i?iii?i:i?•N,ki?i?i?y?i [ [ e
:+f9?+?!�?t?1?l:.t?lfttt!if:'ti:?.�ti:i:it;?i?i:l:??i:•.�i:i:i?fil111 i:iiiti:ilifiliiiit�� y
f:!i? t!ii�ii?iS?i;l?!f':?!�?4y:?�?:If:;:i:::?•'••isi;iiifi ?ti::::::::::::::::•:::![::
?fFi?;?iiifi!•e,:•• �±.:..:?.its:fl+ffliiti:ilf:i:i:i:i:i:?ice i:iiiii;f;iiifii:
?I??F!?iH!til+�i!i!iiiiiiii i`,•:; 'ii;ii?;:Fiiiii;:i:;ilii;i;iii??;iiriii;;i•i'•e': ii
.. ?:?ht. •:i::•::i O
iiii:iii ;ifiiiiiiiiiii;i;y i ':.iii?iii:iiiiciiiiiii i?ii?'c,iiiiiiiii:i:•i►ii :r
fl?If+?I?llili:;iiii?!?!� !fii;f;i?iiitftiii?iii:ifiiiiiiiii Silii •: :: : O
?ii'•i'i';iif;i i'ii:iiiif:i?•vif !i;-iii '• a?iii?: •:•`'e•:••:� { t: � A
�r!i�sr'rfiMlh?iiif?i; ��-
exle Bx16
;fi:iiiii;iii ffi?!f:?f:f!ifl:t?i.: :: :•�' txxxmxu
C"ACT C"ACT
BIKE :v:::~• :i=
��?•:::>: is?::::+:I•f::.::.:?:?: !:?: ?:+:+:+:+:[:t::t:?:Gt:::[.1: i 1 I:::I;I;I;I;s.:.t•[•1 1.:.1•�•::•:• :•�1: .o•:•!1.1.[I
iiiiiiiiii iiiiiii...�1:.t.1.le>.pl.l.1?.t..ltilF:liii;ii;ii;?if;iiiiiiiiiififiiiiiii;i;'1'•'i'i'..t. ..::1::::.e.::.:.1•:.[..[..e.::.:. .?
iii 'i •`•`,i ? f':: :?:::f:.i:iif:: �i;'i?:?� ?;::!;:;:;::::; :::�y.:.:.:.::<.:[:•>:•:.o-:.:.::.:.:.:.: :e..:.: :'mVEMAr'
'::fi?[:�t,l,l:.....1:::tl1:I.itt.t?.?.:Silit.t!:i.:.!.if:.litlifl:+fl::::t:?:�Clfl::[?f:tPG:;:::].:�tlt:i,l::t:til:l:l:�1•F;S::l: ;:• :
. rRei •ik{ � R �RRii [iRRiii?iii: •'•]is�i:i: •'i �' •'iii•""""'''''"
.:f:fi.......:•:::R.::I+:¢.•::��������q�lli� ii• •R�1i; rii;iif �?
??;i;ii°ii?f;' if;:+i? ?<i::f:? ??'s'ifif:f:::f;:;?;i:ff! ::•::::•:� :: ::::::::::.:[a:.:.:.>::::•: ::.:.:::�•::�:::: .10:;::;. .
..:.i,.:1:.....1.t...l.l...[i...[.if:.t.....lf:.:]:. i.1•:•tt:•:.t.lt:.:•:,•,••I.t•,:;;;:: G;t;t:lt.:::]t+i:::i:::[;�:i:T:t::::•:;:i•: .i'•:::Y: :
iiiiiiii'i;ii?;f?:iii fiii;iiiii:e i::::::e�:'i�'��'::::::::::• ?•.:::<:S•:...:•::r:?: ?::q;•:; :?;:: f;: :c;:r;: !: :::
::t.l::::.l.I,I F,�l>.;e:.1,.11.:+;•,•ftl.:.l?t:C:GeI: +?I.:.:[f ?::eye!��y:;f:>�� [?I?I:t?+f ::ii;ii;? i?iiiiii<iifi
SITE PLAN E
GROSS BUILDING 2200$Q FT
SRC{AREA_SOOo SM R.
SITE COVERAGE 23%
EXCEPTIONS
1)STREET YARD—.REDUCE FROM 15'TO W FOR BUILDING
2)ONE SIDE YARD—ROM FROM 6'TO I.6'(WITH FIREWALL)
3)10'DRIVEWAY FOR 6 CAR SPACES AND I FOR BIKES
EXHIBIT B
Jim Dummit Enterprises v8
IML..m
3- 14
s
� o
iLIP
ROLAND C. MADDALENA, INC.
REAL ESTATE AND MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS
1829 BROAD STREET•SAN Luis oeWra.CAUFMNiA 93401 •(905)543.9912
ROLAND G MADOALENA .
REALTOR
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
' - - f _ �_ - r _r •� _• _ _ r_•
rii� .a� - ..
. 4 __ ' 1 _ o. I ,
'r i I , - .
t- - •. . :, august:l7, 19:87 _ .
rr...
-. .__ _ m. .
-- ,` _
_ V
.
_ -
.
._
r
To f�iIliom 2t Mays Concern ,
I. i yi:r. -ai_F.+�,•, hT fi..l".i.l yjiu y-.y..-�:1 - ,! J
.�� a'rrr y:r _:F - :.�_ __i Lr _'� ; '+_ ':d .I. _ _- L i.•. ....
,', L r r + 1.
.T .... - '
.�..trc j..Y roperty 'asvd Fiouse abuts the Sro'. Street propertx Mr.; D ..
1 is ;sttemptingrto devd1b' into an office complex.
._. .; , :1 ., _ I rM1. 'r,i i t u , S_ ...." I. _
,� I to a r.evieved the; variorm.us-;plans Ifor„��hO property with Mr D... ,
-.,� andr,concur- with: his preferred pian 'tcr Iplace rthe17?uildfngs to the .
r.. rrea :..Of-::the- property .with parking in the . ronf':''
.. _ A -I. I
w I 1'feel :his effort: to upgrade the bal'dings_randL Iandacapet-the
1
1 1 ... . .r .. _ .
... - .. _
�operty,:wiil. be':aI .n _asset to the eommiiatty sand' the nenghborhood.
.� _
E
1 .. .-
mr
...-- _ - ..ter r. IT iv. _
1.
x .. ....-. - - - -
.. .......__.:. ..r ....:- -. :.1��. _
. _ .
.• r .r .... _ ..ram_ -..' ...., _ - ..4�.
_ , - w. .r, ..... :, .:I h1 i Mr F I * 4"II B ....
--'+� - .- ...... . ....
��1 ! �i ,
1 !II l ,
-+ -_ .. ..
eter R' 'Ph .11' Prrchit ' -" 1
:-::�- ips. '.Y.,r
r- - -
- . ,:_
_J 1
. .. .. :.:
x.676 Pismo_ Street - :;: :_,� y
_ i
_ _ . 5al.n Luis Obispo. CR: 93401 _ - ,
.. _. .
. ....__.._... .....I... :.....:.. :}..- .,. . . .
.._-...— .. , .. ,...r .. _ _ __ _ - . . .
. fl.. ; .
^ ..
%
._ ..... _ _ _ ... _ -
.__._i..-.-.c...._..:_.._._..-... "'-C - - _ - .-- ...
. .. :.: i _ ......._ -_ - _.. __ - .
- ,,., .
.„___._ - 1. _.. .
..
..1 .. ._.. _,.. _ .. _ 4 -.. . .. . ..
_ _ .. r ...
..'r - r
.- 1 .r, l f ,J 1 I, ;
I. -. ._. -
7 a
_...... ..a ,
.. . r i 1
_ .-.. ..-..:. r. .w .i'... ,a-_.�- -, .. .:- cal _ _ _ 1. ..
._ .F.. 1
... _.._ .: �,:r
.. ... _ _ ...__ _ - .
... ._.1 r 1 . ... r _ .. ' ...
F..: r i..:r . ..
...-._`�_v_-'.. r' - .... _ _ _
1
..... r .... .- _
-.. '.... _. ___ .... - ..
.0 .... _
r .. •r r .' .._ _ 1 _
_._ 4n.ri •.' M.
_ 1 S.r.r. .. .. -f• lls _
” I - _ _ _ _ _
.r
.] W. r T�f r .. . I .1.. r - Ir .
,4[. .�'.4' r��f�r_.... a.�17l , - a :r��, , �'� I a r 1+as �yT 1 F. . L . .
tea - - "Imm5
..Rh-1".i L:,_". 4..I.IlA� L '..'J 4� " a d3rl , JJ �.
-,_ +,rj'ri'r.__ rT �"7__•wltt S Y ..' .r1 �I ti I J Mr .rub f 5W 1 j 4 n c-,I'J d^J• rr .. y.C11Wi (! t
!r^r" I* g J ,: 1 J`'x-+.- "Y' d 4 ,1•ni.M--dra ._.. r '. n LSer
� ul- Fn,o�='�``, �JI,-�. Jr',+4 �, aY 7 I 'b 1 ..C]a.µ.l Ys,{L�.I.a♦' f �r.ate Ist IM+{Ir '�y m a.r tet{ f�+✓•T n• 1 ,W I
-t.: V,wlr ! 1 71 J h J 4 F�rdai.,, I
-+F-1�1� n ., .Y_4a J r ! .' `a.•„`r�.� i r 1! 11.1. . .. � fil .l nir.
�f"r Ir. „F 1tT,I CnP c� l r.i_ ?JI L` -. I
wvr "4rCti i r7
.1-.._.�{_,a , ,-r'�1":AI n .- ei r',_Tr-7~�tr-r!r } YfK �i � 'I �ti-t la , yl J11 . 1 L
Y i
�_ �-•'tif It h� --Al 4 ?, .,r l` 1 t _ Ii ' `f r ,..,� ...
I 1F I=I 1~ r 1 hr '3�l_J','r n1. ° 7r !
I r1 j i 1, 1y-k�I,� •Y-' ' ,qly �fA h t ' "}YS`�•ix.' �r '". 1 n ,. _ _.
�Ja T-z+ 'PCF °�1 T'b ,'i .f-n� .f..��'� i'. 1 1,-fi r ink 1 la� 1. _ -
.I r! 1 L PL-b- '..I' m.a-:p. „I I-i'a.�f2.^fil]'" P r 'u1-�1P i•i I I .f .z 3 �W,1M Jy�4f a rii
y 1i.-.r-i f 't irt.f•i,r 1 if .- -1. m. r.. ia. r r. L 3Y.N Yr•y
♦ti.� 1 1 y L. 1 L �F I _ 1. , r' 4 L.f1'JJ7 '�F 1 ,'. 11 1; r
a- -1'�• ,I LL4 >''OrT ti3r+.:`^I, '7 , t r .' .1, I .
J
.. 1 pp .�J
1�
. -e ..
u
..
.............
':fr:-_ .�y
_ .. .
�,�
- r .
_I .
-
. . 3
_.
. . .
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.
3' I 1
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
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 uce 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 mu 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 cente .
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
1
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.
�-22
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 emodel. 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 co 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.
. 3- 23
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.
6. ARC 87-118: 1335 & 1337 Broad Street; remodel, addition, and
convert existing houses to offices; 0 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�
1
l
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; }
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 Ren 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.
���II�Nlil�lnllllllllll��������lll �IIIIIIIII �
II IIIII city osAn 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, 1987, 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,
Ken Bruce
Hearing Officer
KB.bee
3-27
►��n�� ��►���i�h����I�IIi�IIIIIP�u°1°°��� NI city of sAn 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: 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:
Findinas
1. There are circumstances applying to the site which do not apply
generallyto 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.
Sincerrt.
ly,
K1
Ken Bruce
Hearing Officer
KB:bee
3-�.q
MEETING DATE:
�IN ►►�N�Ip�pn����lU city of San LUIS OBIspo
COUNCIL AG NDA REPORT
FROM: David F. Romero Prepared by: Dave Pierce
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Modification of Traffic Indexes
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Give final passage to Ordinance No. 1111 amending the
Municipal Code concerning Traffic Indexes.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on February 15, 1988, the council passed to print
Ordinance No. 1111, which would amend the Municipal Code concerning
Traffic Indexes.
Staff recommends that the council give final passage to Ordinance
No. 1111, amending the Municipal Code concerning Traffic Indexes.
traffindex/dfr#10
JJ
2- �
ORDINANCE NO. 1111 (1988 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING SECTION 16.36.140 (STREET TYPE AND REQUIRED M)
OF CHAPTER 16.36 (SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND n4TMEM NTS)
OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
MM;MAS, The Traffic Indexes established in Section 16.36.140 are based
an a 10 year design life; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Index is a measure of the number of vehicles that
will drive over a pavement during the design life; and
M=AS, California Department of Transportation and most other design
agencies recommend a 20 year design life; and
WHEREAS, The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted a Pavement Management
Policy that the design of street pavements should provide for the most
economical life-cycle casts to the City; and
WHEREAS, the increase in Traffic Indexes will double the design life of
pavements and increase the time until reconstruction is needed by at least
10 years at an estimated increase in construction cost of fifteen percent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 16.36.140 is hereby amended to updated the Traffic
Indexes for the following Street types in the "Chart of street types and
requi tsts
STREET TYPE TRAFFIC INDEX
CUL-DE-SAC (access court) 5.5
HILT CUL-DE-SAC 5.5
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR 7.0
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MINOR 8.0
ARTERIAL 8.0
THOROUGHFARE (highway) 10.0
niiII
Ordinance No. 1111 (1988 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. This Ordinance, together with the ayes and nom, shall be
published once in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage
in the Telegram-Tribule, a newspaper published and circulated in said City,
and the same shall go into effect at the exparation of thirty (30) days
after said final image.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED-TO-PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at a meeting held on the 16th day of February 198 8, on
motion of Councilman Settle seconded by Mayor Dunin ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Mayor Dunin, and Reiss
NOES: Councilwoman Pinard
ABSENT: Councilwoman Rappa
R RON DUNIN
ATTEST
CITY CLVW PAM VOGID
APPROVED:
City trative Officer City At VrTley
Ccumn ity Development Director Public Works Director
L�V�
ty Engineer �-3
gg _ pS '
gl $
cX
• I Q a a C
$--
• ll
Z .. 24. amp �wEeas
y �� I A� ■�� eE � S yo.�V ����. I
IL
W ! �. ! � Qac. — ea gY_e Ear
Ila I �$w 8 S e w2 .t 9
S[LAI
�i.�l EEool $ E3—s'�
o v r '$ =m enAsk,ag
w�•• I
a
C3
_ s�vi sba gB_ a _ yr68 i 8
3g�8 �P$S 30 sSP Ag if "s' 190^5{
V E
x
e
I W
Z
V $ E€
[•J O E Y O V V
qq �bp �p I e Y
O�-
a j jc I � c E I = o
e e V wV A I O(.1 4 e I C
� w �� « u G_ •1
6^$ss_Eie
V 3 1 I !9 tl� c w�c w i ; w y y I w a
_ = BBx o�J-%
go gg •ons p E « ' � ow a wa � i
_
C S :eta I ;P ;P 8' i ie+ 38
cc
W cc
Fy $ e $ II I E
GC C 1 •{�� I C 1 y I I g I C
V i C• S i O ' OC S Y CS CV d Y p
OV
g—
Q ao as I aS I aY I = � 1 •' � ' $ y.�
i o. 08 I vL cs I 88 i co e o $ ••
I `o
VV 25e � e
Q
• i aY e
! ! o I ve <
Ia ! �� � � e C Y C •:
R 51
o a 55 - rw E$g _ Sws C
vi
W s a
S s g 8
i
f C ss YVq
2.4 t C w o
�a
aa aas c
�a
Jus < J J J U
a <o < I= r r0 U< J Lu c7 r
VLU UJ Wr w C
W Gn NC C¢ NC¢ OW Cr
SW 3 ..
HZ JyZ N� PCZ r O¢_a i
(San Luis Obispo 7.85) 406
1I,I���y�ll��llln�l II "J MEETING DATE:
W lul A�� Cl O� SM LUIS OBISPO 3-1-88
MGM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 'TE"'!3
J�
FROM. Michael Multari;Community Development Director Prepared by: Judith Lautner
SUBJECT:
GP/R 1343: General plan and zoning map change from Neighborhood Commercial to
Office, for a lot on the corner of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Amend the General Plan map to Office, and the Zoning map to O-S (Office, with special
considerations).
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION
The applicant wants to use his property for offices. The current zoning of the property
is Neighborhood Commercial, which does not allow offices. He is therefore requesting a
general plan and zoning change to change the property's designation to Office. The
Planning Commission and staff support a change in designation for this property, for the
following reasons:
The requested change is consistent with general plan policies, as noted in the attached
environmental initial study. The city's 1986 "Office Supply and Demand Study" indicates
demand is increasing for office space in the category of 1500 to 2500 square feet, and
suggests a change to the designation of this lot (among others) as one possibility to
meet that projected demand. On the other hand, demand for neighborhood commercial uses
has not been high in this area, and is not expected to increase for several years.
The site, on the corner of Johnson and Pismo, is adjacent to residences to the rear and
to the Telegram-Tribune offices to the north, and is across the street from offices. The
change to an Office designation would hence be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The nature of the use is also more compatible with residential uses than
is neighborhood commercial.
Because the treatment of San Luis Obispo Creek needs special care, staff is recommending
the zoning map be changed to O-S, allowing Planning Commission review of all work near
the creek.
The council may approve the change as requested or as recommended by staff, or as
modified by council discussion. The council may deny the change or continue
consideration of the request.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Significant environmental effects are not expected from either approval or denial of the
request. See the attached initial study for further discussion.
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council denies the request, the property may continue to be used for residential
purposes (a legal non-conforming use, currently allowed with approval of an I
administrative use permit), or may be converted to a neighborhood commercial use with
appropriate permits. 9—
111,01Ilu1110NI city of sanfaIS OBlspo
Ili& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1343
Page 2
Data summary
Address: 1333 and 1335 Johnson Avenue
Applicant: Steve Hooper
Representative: Charles Crotser
Zoning: C-N
General plan: Neighborhood commercial
Environmental status: Negative declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation,
granted by the director December 23, 1987
Project action deadline: May 14, 1988
Site description
The site, approximately 19,600 square feet in area, is bisected by the San Luis Obispo
Creek, and contains two older residences accessible from Johnson Avenue. The creek
effectively precludes any development or access from Pismo Street. The property contains
various trees, shrubs, and riparian vegetation.
Prior review
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on January 27, 1988, and recommended a
change to Office on the general plan map, and a change to O-S on the zoning map. That
commission voiced questions about other appropriate zoning for the property, and
considered if the map change should include a larger area (discussed below).
ISSUES
Staff perceives the issues in this case to be the following:
1. General plan consistency. Either an Office or a Neighborhood Commercial designation
can be found consistent with general plan policies. The site is adjacent to land
zoned Neighborhood-Commercial, and across the street from Office zoning. (See the
environmental initial study for additional discussion.)
2. Office need. One factor in adding more office-zoned land to the city is whether the
additional area is needed. If this map change is approved, the applicant intends to
convert the existing residential structures to offices. (The zoning designation
would also allow the buildings to be demolished--if not considered historically
significant--and new offices to be built.)
The existing structures contain a total of 2520 square feet, not including the garage
(the larger residence contains 2083 square feet, and the smaller 438 square feet).
The size of new offices possible on the site is estimated at 5,800 square feet, based
37
►►�IilII��P° �II�IU city o f San LUIS OBISPO
i
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1343
Page 3
on property development requirements such as setbacks, height, and parking. Because
of the creek running through the property, it is unlikely that space larger than this
will be possible.
The "Office Supply and Demand Study", completed for the city on February 28, 1986,
estimates that there will be a more than adequate supply of office space to meet the
expected demand for office spaces smaller than 1500 square feet, over the ten year
period from 1985 to 1995. The estimate is based on potential residential conversions
and underutilized office space in areas already zoned Office. .On the other hand,
office space over 1500 square feet in area will be in greater demand, and demand will
outdistance current supply (see attached Table 3-4). One of the mitigation measures
suggested in the study is to change the zoning of this and nearby sites to Office.
The larger residence could accommodate some of the projected demand for additional
office space in the 1500 - 2500 square foot category. The smaller building may
continue to be used as a residence (an allowed use in the Office zone) or may be used
as office space. It is likely, however, that the smaller residence will have to be
removed to provide required parking. In any case, the addition of this one lot to
the total supply of office-zoned land is not expected to have a significant impact.
3. Neighborhood commercial demand, Neighborhood commercial need may be assessed by the
potential for neighborhood expansion and the demand for additional neighborhood
commercial land. Some neighborhood commercial centers have experienced significant
expansion recently, including the Laguna Lake shopping center and Foothill Plaza.
This expansion has been in response to an increase in population in these areas and
the previous lack of neighborhood facilities nearby.
The neighborhood near the site, on the other hand, has grown slowly over the past
several years. At present, this neighborhood commercial zone contains only one
market, the Telegram-Tribune offices, and the homes on the site. The demand for
neighborhood commercial services has not been great, as evidenced by the lack of
intensification of this center.
While there hasn't been any interest expressed (as indicated by development
applications) in adding additional uses to the neighborhood commercial area, if this
demand increases over the next several years, the Safeway and Telegram-Tribune sites
offer room for expansion.
The council may want to consider expanding the office zone to take in the
Telegram-Tribune site, for example. The Telegram-Tribune use is likely to continue
for an indefinite period, as evidenced by its recent remodelling. That use, which is
considered legally non-conforming, is more appropriate in a Service commercial zone
than in Office, given the printing/publishing aspects of the use. Therefore,
changing the zoning to Office at this time would serve no useful purpose.
If the council is interested in pursuing such an option, it should initiate a change
to the maps at the meeting. However, staff feels such significant changes are better
considered in the context of the general plan update.
3-3
o"111NIIigNil pl city of san .-4is OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1343
Page 4
4. Relationship to surrounding uses. The site is adjacent to a residential area at the
rear, to the Telegram-Tribune offices on the North, and to other offices across the
street. The site is therefore contiguous to office uses rather than neighborhood
commercial. A C-N use at this site would be separated from the only other C-N use by
the Telegram-Tribune offices. This relationship tends to favor office use at the
site.
In evaluating this request, staff also considered other designations for the
property. A residential designation would be appropriate. However, residences are
an allowed use in the Office zone, which means the existing homes would be a
conforming use in either zone. The Office designation allows greater flexibility in
the use of the site, and offices may be less affected by the proximity to the
Telegram-Tribune operation and the traffic noise than residences. Staff feels the
creek is a logical break between commercial and residential uses.
5. Impacts cif neighborhood commercial andfo fice development. In general, neighborhood
commercial uses are more intense than office uses. If the site were developed with
neighborhood commercial uses, greater levels of traffic, more noise, and more
nighttime light could be expected. Development would require sound- and
light-mitigation measures, to protect the nearby residences.
Both types of uses would be likely to increase traffic in the area from the current
residential use:
Residential use: 2 residences @ 10 vehicle trips/day = 20 vehicle trips/day
Office use: . 5,800 square feet @ 11.69 trips/1000 S.F. = 68 vehicle trips/day
Commercial use: 3,800 square feet @ 115.8 trips/1000 S.F. = 440 vehicle
trips/day
Source@ Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation statistics; size
estimates are maximum development potential, based on property development
requirements of office and commercial developments.
Because Johnson Avenue is a busy arterial street, traffic exiting onto it should be
limited. Office use is likely to generate significantly fewer trips than
commercial. In staff's view, the site is more appropriately used as an office
"buffer" area for the adjacent commercial uses, than for those commercial uses.
6. Historical significance. The two homes were not considered historically significant
by the Historical Resources survey crew in 1983. If the property owner wants to
demolish them in the future, however, the request would be reviewed by both the
Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. Members of
these commissions may have information that was not available to the survey crew,
that may indicate the buildings have some historical value.
3.4
��� � ►�IIIIIfl�P ��I�N city or san suis osispo
MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1343
Page 5
Should it be determined that the buildings are significant, historically, culturally,
or esthetically, the residences can more easily be converted to an office use,
without demolition, than to a neighborhood commercial use. However, in at least one
instance in the city an older house has been converted to a restaurant (an allowed
use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone).
Therefore, the change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office is not likely to affect
the historical value of the buildings.
7. Creek. A significant creek crosses the site. Creek protection measures can be
developed and enforced in either the Office or the Neighborhood Commercial zones.
Office use is more likely, however, to take advantage of the creek as an amenity and
may generate less intense use of the site and the creek.
Any further development of the site will require installation of sidewalks on the
Pismo Street frontage. Because of the location of the creek, this installation will
require sensitive treatment. Staff recommends the addition of the "S" overlay zoning
to the request for Office zoning, to allow for Planning Commission review of
treatment of the creek and the Pismo Street frontage improvements.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on January 27, 1988, and voted 5 - 0 (one
absent, one vacancy) to change the General Plan map to Office, and the Zoning map to
Office, with Special Considerations (O-S). The commission indicated some concern about
the retention of existing housing, but noted that housing is an allowed use in the Office
zone.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve or deny the request, or may approve a change from C-N to a
different zone, such as O-S, or O along with C/OS. A change to O-S would allow review of
development near the creek, and of treatment of the Pismo Street frontage. The council
may also continue the request. If continued, direction should be given to the applicant
and staff.
CONCURRENCES
Other departments had no concerns with the request.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Affirm the Director's action granting a negative declaration of environmental
impact; and
2) Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan map from Neighborhood Commercial to
Office, and introduce an ordinance rezoning the property from C-N to O-S, based on
the findings listed in the attached draft resolution and ordinance.
3-5
��� i�ulllp�l►� ►�q�IN aw or san ,AS OB15p0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R. 1343
Page 6
Attached:.
Vicinity map
Draft resolutions
Draft ordinance
Excerpt from Office Supply.and Demand Study
Initial study
Planning Commisgion minutes January 27, 1988
JL:gprl343c
3-6 ,
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this . ..... .... day of ... ..... ..... ... .
1988.
.......... ....... .......... ..... ..... .....
Mayor
ATTEST:
. .. . ... ....... ..... .... . ..... .....
City Clerk
APPROVED:
... .. . . .v .. ..... ..... ... . . .
City Administrative Officer
..... . ... . ... .. . . . ....
Cit?Atto y
.... .......... ..... ..... .... . .... . .
Community Development Director
3 - g
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
TO OFFICE, FOR PROPERTY AT WESTERLY CORNER OF JOHNSON AVENUE
AND PISMO STREET (GP/R 1343)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings to consider
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map in compliance with the Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines,
and the request to change the land use element map to Office for property at 1333 and
1335 Johnson Avenue poses no adverse impacts on the environment and has been granted a
negative declaration by the Community Development Director; and
WHEREAS, the amendment is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the city's general plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The determinations of the Community Development Director concerning
environmental documents are hereby affirmed.
SECTION 2. The Land Use Element map is hereby amended as shown on the attached
exhibit.
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause changes to be made in
publications and maps which are available to the public and displays in City Hall.
SECTION 4. This action shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption
of this resolution.
On motion of... . ..... .. ... .. , seconded by .
... . ..... ... . and on the following roll call vote:
3'�
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
City dministiative Officer
City Att ey
Community Development Director
i ,
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO REZONE A PARCEL ON THE WESTERLY CORNER
OF JOHNSON AVENUE AND PISMO STREET FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings to consider
amendments to the Land use Element Map and Zoning Map in compliance with the Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendments are not consistent with the city's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed office uses are not appropriate at the proposed location and
will not be compatible with surrounding land uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The proposed rezoning and general plan amendments are hereby denied.
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
3 � 1
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at it
meeting held on the ..... ..... day of ................. ....... 1988, on motion
of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
....... ......................... .... . .. .. . ..
Mayor
ATTEST:
............................. ....
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
... . ... .... ............. . ...
Ci Atto ey
. ... .. ... ... . . ..... ..... ..... ....
Community Development Director
3 - 12
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP OF THE CITY TO REZONE PROPERTY
AT 1333 AND 1335 JOHNSON AVENUE FROM C-N TO O-S
(GP/R 1343)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
appropriate zoning on subject property in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a negative
declaration has been granted by the city; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the city's Environmental Guidelines, the project's negative
declaration is hereby affirmed.
SECTION 2. That the property at 1333 and 1335 Johnson Avenue be rezoned from C-N
(neighborhood commercial) to O-S (Office, with special considerations) as shown on the
attached zoning map.
SECTION 3. This ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published once
in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the
expiration of thirty (30) days after its said passage.
�� I I
1 1
provides a major offset to potential shortages in the supply of p
individual spaces over 5,000 square feet in size. Utilization
of City property for office development is not yet_ certain; if
such development is deducted from the calucations of potential
office supply, there is an estimated shortage of office space
under both the maximum level and baseline conditions beginning
in 1990 .
TABLE 3-4
SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE STUDY
OFFICE DEMAND AND SUPPLY
BY OFFICE SIZE CATEGORY
BASELINE CONDITIONS
OFFICE SIZE RANGE
[1,500 1500-2500 2500-5000 15000 TOTAL
Potential Supply
Existing Supply* 212,831 179,009 240,856 499 ,907 1 ,132 ,603
New Conversions** 160,584 25 ,322 6,450 --- 192 ,356
New Structures**
Private 750 3,375 46,298 15,675 66 ,098
Public --- --- --- 53 ,087 53 ,087
TOTAL 4, 65 20 ,706 2930,604 568 ,669 T,,444p144
Vacancy Allowance (18,708 ) (10 ,385 ) (14 ,620 ) 28 ,433 72 ,207
Total Adjusted
Supply 355,457 197,321 278 ,924 540,236 1,371,937
aaa as as as as n�a a.a a a a a as a a e a a a a a a o a a a a
Demand
986-1990 36 ,000 28 ,000 38,000 48,000 150 ,000
1991-1995 24 ,000 191,000 25,000 32,000 100 ,000
Total 10-year
Demand 60,000 47,000 63,000 80,000 250 ,000
Existing Demand 196,968 154 ,300 207 ,282 457,225 11015 ,775
Total Demand 1990 232 ,968 182 ,300 245 ,282 505 ,225 1 ,165 ,775
Total Demand 1995 259,968 201,300 270,282 537,225 11265 ,775
Net Surplus
s Orta e
1990 122,489 15,021 33,642 35,011 206,083
1995 95,489 ( 3 ,979 ) 8,642 3,011 103,163
See Table -
**See Table 2-6
Gl'/R 1343 VICINITY MAP
' O A.-
10.
RTS+ J1•r , .
0 G ''
p �P,G
� i o
0
® " O
•�'' ® pOH � I Q' �,� ��
ti - Qr
O
epr
am
o ��
O O O
o O �� �® • Q r~"+
p �� Q p JGl1 '4� O
�®�,• O �, O 1i� Op
ER 58-87
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The,applicant wants to change the general plan and zoning map designations for his
property.at the corner of Johnson and Buchon Streets, from neighborhood commercial to
professional office. The site is bisected by the San Luis Obispo Creek, and contains
two older residences accessible from Johnson Avenue. The creek effectively precludes
any development or access from Pismo Street. The property contains various trees,
shrubs, and riparian vegetation.
A proposal for installing a retaining wall along the rear and northerly side of the
lot has been submitted to the city; No other proposals for altering the site or the
buildings have been submitted.
II POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community plans and ftoals
The proposal is to change the map designation for the property from neighborhood
commercial to professional office. This means the change should be consistent with
general plan policies.
Land use element:
General plan land use element policies for neighborhood convenience commercial
centers say that the city should support convenience centers that will require
shorter automotive trip distances and encourage nonvehicular convenience shopping.
The existing neighborhood commercial.center includes the Safeway store and parking
lot, the Telegram-Tribune offices (a non-conforming use), and this corner site. It
meets the criteria in the land use element for such centers, in that it has direct
service access from arterial streets and is adjacent to a residential area.
The residential area nearby is one of the oldest parts of the city. There is no area
available.for expansion of this area, except that individual lots may be developed
with additional dwelling units. The residential areas are medium- or medium-high
density residential, allowing more than one dwelling on most lots. Over the past
several years, many homeowners have taken advantage of this development opportunity
to add apartments to the rear of their lots. No studies have been undertaken
recently that would indicate the ultimate intensification possibilities for these
lots. However, if the present rates continue, it will likely be several years before
the area is entirely built-out at allowed density levels.
Therefore, additional demand for neighborhood commercial facilities is likely to be
small for several years.
The present center is underutilized. The Safeway store is the only neighborhood
commercial use in it. The parking lot surrounding the store is larger than needed
for the use, meaning an additional building could likely be added to the Safeway site
without requiring additional parking spaces. The Telegram-Tribune building, a legal
non-conforming use, has occupied its site for several years. If additional space is
needed in the future for neighborhood commercial uses, the uses on these two lots
could be intensified or changed. /
/3' I10
city of San tuffs OBISpo
'i��►►►�iilllllilll�j!►►►►►'ll�iill
INITIAL STUDY ,OF OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
� ,
SITE LOCATION 1535 �'� %j O4 6J-S6 0 14V'e APPLICATION NO. `5g-B-1
PROJECT DEscRIFnoN Cff A-N to , l9 'Nf�i2 f, I�LA�I) so N/N 6 1 - f6 fJ A77061 o
fDYL A- L?✓A?ZrM- &RP- MC/UM, DF J0#AJDA)
ATJP P/S" 0 jC9.DM .Vf-76H 09anr) inaNH6ECPA�- TO
<IV HUo,PF�� e �iCE
APPLICANT ,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDYREQUIREDENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY ✓U UI! !T I�A'U � DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... rnl
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......'...
...................
........
......
�
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ 'YlA"ltp-
F. UTILITIES............................................................................. 7' C�
• G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................�t,�YK?�
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS d TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... -
L AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS..............7................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
KPLANT LIFE....................................................................... 'YUYriP�
LANIMALUFE........................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL!HISTORICAL...................................................
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... Q-
0. ENERGWRESOURCEUSE
..........................................................
P. OTHER n�. ��y�-��, � KR� _
IIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION �}l.( OL 0,tj 1 V4, Q;U44'' -) i^' EA '' "". 6>;OL
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT o .J �ev t
ER 58-87
Page 4
F. Utilities
Water use:
Water use for a typical non-medical office converted from a residence is about 0.59
acre-feet of water per year. Water use for a medical office converted from a
residence is usually about one acre-foot per year. Various uses' are allowed in the
neighborhood commercial zone. In terms of water use, these range from retail uses,
which average 0.035 acre-feet per 1000 square feet per,year, to'"slow food"
restaurants, which typically use 1.65 acre-feet per 1000 square feet per year.
Depending on the size of the building and the type of use, water use could be higher
or lower if the site were office-zoned instead of neighborhood commercial. The
current use, residential, has a typical water use of between 0.37 and 0.75 acre-feet
per year.
Conclusion: No significant impacts on water usage in the city are expected to result
from a change to professional office use for the site.
G. Noise
Office uses are typically quiet. As the site is immediately adjacent to residences,
quiet is preferred for this location. Neighborhood commercial uses are usually more
active during evening hours than are office uses, and therefore will generate greater
noise. The city has adopted noise standards for all uses, to protect residents and
business tenants from excessive noise. When uses are proposed that may violate these
standards, mitigation measures are required to be instituted, such as block walls.
Conclusion: No significant impacts on noise are expected to result from offices at this
location.
J. Surface water flow and guality
A creek runs through the property. The applicant is not requesting any changes to
the property at this time. Development plans will be screened by appropriate review
bodies if any changes are planned in the future.
Conclusion: No significant impacts on surface water flow and quality are expected as a
result of this change.
NL Archeolo¢ical/historical
The house on the site was reviewed by the Historical Resources survey crew in 1983.
The house was determined to be a "neoclassic rowhouse', built in 1957. It was not
considered historically significant.
ER 58-87
Page 3
Professional office policies in the land use element say that professional office
uses should 'be encouraged to develop in peripheral areas of the Central Business
District ...to take advantage of close proximity to governmental and retail uses in
the downtown, and provide a transition between...the central commercial core and
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The existing office zone nearby.fills these criteria. The site, across the street
from an office zone, also meets these criteria.
Primary access to professional office activities should be provided from commercial
arterial or collector streets, according to the LUE. Again, the only access to this
site is Johnson Avenue, a major arterial.
Conclusion: The land use designations of both neighborhood commercial and professional
office for this site are compatible with existing policies.
C: Land M
As noted above, office uses exist in the area. Neighborhood commercial uses exist in
the area as well. The use of the site for either purpose would not alter or disrupt
the present or planned land use of the area substantially.
Conclusion: No significant negative consequences are expected to result in the land uses
of the area from the proposed map changes.
D. Transportation and.circulation
Johnson Avenue is a busy street. To keep traffic flowing smoothly, access directly
onto arterials is usually limited. As the site has access only to Johnson, a use
independent from the Telegram-Tribune would need its own driveway. Therefore, if the
property were to be developed independently of the remaining neighborhood commercial
area, office use would be favored over neighborhood commercial use from a circulation
standpoint. Neighborhood commercial uses tend to be more intense than office uses.
The traffic into and out of the driveway would be higher as a neighborhood commercial
use than it is now and probably higher than an office use in the same space.
On the other hand, if it were developed in conjunction with the nearby neighborhood
commercial property, a common-access driveway could be used. The result could be
fewer driveways on a busy arterial street.
No specific proposal has been presented for the development of the lot, other than
that the existing residences would be converted to offices. The change to a
professional office designation would not preclude a shared driveway approach, if
such an arrangement is feasible.
Conclusion: The impact of the map changes on the traffic and circulation of the area is
dependent on the specific development proposal. Both neighborhood commercial and office
uses can have favorable and unfavorable impacts on circulation.
litigation measure: Specific development proposals must be developed and reviewed with
the aim of limiting circulation impacts.
3-I ?
1
REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES - ER 58-87
Change general plan and zoning designations for a
quarter-acre site on the corner of Johnson and
Pismo from neighborhood-commercial to professional
office
1333-35 Johnson Avenue
The following measures are included in the project to mitigate
potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original
and return to my office as soon as possible.
1. Specific development proposals must be developed and reviewed
with the aim of limiting circulation impacts.
APPROVED BY:
Michael Multari, Director
Community Development
. '� /V•
Steve Hooper
3-20
ER 58-87
Page 5
The land use element office policies encourage the retention of older homes, such as
this one, rather than their replacement with new buildings. The owner's stated
intent is to convert the house to an office. The conversion would be subject to
architectural review to assure the changes are compatible with the style of the
building. At the time of this review, there will be opportunities for public input
on its historical significance.
The house could be retained, as either a neighborhood commercial (such as a
restaurant) or an office use.
Conclusion: The change in land use designation will not have.a significant effect on the
historical or archeological value of the site..
Other imoacts
The project is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on other aspects of
the environment not discussed above, based'on the project description.
III STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration of environmental impact, with one mitigation measure:
Specific development proposals must be developed and reviewed with the aim of
limiting circulation impacts.
judo2:er58-87
3- r�
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
Regular Meeting January 27, 1988
Item 2. Public Hearing: General Plan Amendment & RezoninQ GP/R 1343.
Consideration of amending the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the
designations from neighborhood-commercial (C-N) to office (0); 1333-1335 Johnson
Avenue; Steve Hopper, applicant.
Commr. Hainline joined the meeting. Commr. Crotser stepped down, due to a conflict of
interest.
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended the commission recommend to City
Council that the General Plan map be changed to Office and the Zoning map be changed to
O-S.
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Steve Hooper, applicant, stated that he did not have a tenant at this time, but that
offices were an appropriate use of the property. He explained that Johnson Avenue was
not conducive to residential uses because of noise and traffic. He added that office
uses would be less intensive than uses allowed in the C-N zone.
Kathleen Harriet, 880 Leff, was concerned with how parking would be provided. Staff
responded that parking could be accommodated without removing the existing house.
Mr. Hooper discussed a parking plan that allowed up to 12 parking spaces without
demolishing either house. He did not want this project to be considered with possible
rezoning of the Telegram-Tribune site and did not favor R-2 zoning.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing.
Commr. Gerety felt that if the O-zoning was allowed at this site, the city should also
consider rezoning the Telegram-Tribune site to office.
Commr. Gerety moved to recommend to council that the Land Use Element map be changed to
office and the Zoning map be changed to O-S, subject to findings and conditions.
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion, Resolution No. 4016-88.
VOTING:AYES - Commrs. Gerety, Duerk, Hainline, Schmidt, and Kourakis.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr. Crotser.
The motion passes.
PC Minutes
January 22, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Gerety moved to recommend to staff that they initiate rezoning on adjacent
property.
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion.
Commrs. Duerk, Hainline, and Kourakis felt the process should wait for the General Plan
Update review later in the year.
VOTING:AYES - Commr. Schmidt.
NOES - Commrs. Duerk, Gerety, Hainline, and Kourakis.
ABSENT - Commr. Crotser.
The motion failed.
ds/data #1/pcl-22
3�z1