HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1998, 3 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PROJECT APPLICATION NO. ARC 88-97 - A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROAD STREET, NORTH OF CAPITOLIO WAY.council M1 - & -98
j acEnda RepoRt It. " .6R
C IT Y OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O
O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner M
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's approval of Project Application No. ARC
88 -97 — a proposal to develop a new commercial building on the east side of Broad
Street, north of Capitolio Way.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission's action to approve the project, including a creek setback exception, based
on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
The applicant would like to develop a new commercial building containing about 51,000
square feet of floor area. No specific tenants or uses have yet been identified for the
building. Proposed parking is located on the north and south sides of the building. The
project would have access on Broad Street, as well as three driveways to Sacramento
Drive.
At the request of the applicant, the project was scheduled for a conceptual review by the
ARC on September 15, 1997. At that meeting, the ARC continued action on the project
with direction.
On November 17, 1997, the ARC, on an unanimous vote, granted final approval to the
project, including approval of a creek setback exception for portions of the creek, subject
to conditions and with final colors, materials, and landscaping to return to the
Commission for final approval. The main focus of the Commission was on the choice of
materials. It was felt that the proposed wood siding was not in keeping with the character
of. the area and would not wear as well as metal. Other discussion issues included
appropriate separation of the building from the proposed bike path as well as discussion
on outdoor employee eating areas.
On December I, 1997 an appeal of the ARC's decision to grant final approval to the
project was filed by Roger Marshall who owns the adjacent property to the south at 3470
Broad Street. The appeal cites four main concerns with the project: 1) total habitable area
3/
Council Agenda Rep • Acacia Creek Commercial Cente► 2C 88 -97)
Page 2
within the building; 2) location of mechanical and other equipment: 3) list of potential
uses; and 4) height of the proposed building.
Response to Appeal Issues
Staff feels that the ARC made an informed and appropriate decision in approving the
project on November 17, 1997. The following paragraphs highlight Mr. Marshall's
concerns with the ARC's action and provide staff's reaction to his main points:
1. Total Habitable Area of Building
Appellant's Concern: The total size of the building has been misrepresented through the
process because of the potential to add mezzanine levels to ground floor spaces. With
full development of the mezzanine, there could be a shortfall of parking at the site.
Staffs Response:
With the ARC's conceptual review of the project, staff first questioned the amount of
mezzanine space and the concerns that its creation could have on project parking.
Condition No. 8 of final ARC approval calls for further clarification on the amount of
habitable space at the mezzanine level to return to Planning staff .
The requested information on the potential for habitable space at the mezzanine was
provided by the applicant in advance of the Hearing Officer's consideration of the
required administrative use permit because of the site's C -S -S zoning. Although there
was some discussion on the issue at both ARC meetings, staff pointed out that conditions
regarding the use of the mezzanine area and limitations on the range of uses allowed at
the site were most appropriately addressed through the required use permit process. The
ARC seemed satisfied that, with both the condition on their approval and the requirement
for the use permit review, the issue of mezzanine use would be adequately addressed.
Attached to this report is the approval letter from the administrative hearing which
contains conditions relating to the concerns Mr. Marshall raises in his appeal. The first
condition requires the processing of an administrative use permit for any use proposing
habitable floor space at the mezzanine level. This allows for parking impacts associated
with the addition of floor space to the building to be appropriately evaluated. The second
condition limits uses at the site to those included in the list. Several uses were eliminated
from the list because of their high parking demands. In conclusion, project conditions
will assure that no use, or combination of uses, will be established contrary to the City's
parking regulations.
2. Location of Mechanical & Other Equipment
Appellant's Concern: The ARC did not properly evaluate the impacts of where various
equipment will be located in reviewing the project design. Because of the building's size,
-?-Z-
Council Agenda Repo Acacia Creek Commercial Center, C88-97)
Page 3
this could have an important impact on the building's appearance.
Staffs Response:
The need for this information was noted in both ARC staff reports. Staff agrees that the
information is important and can affect a building's appearance. In response to the
concern, there was a condition attached to the ARC's approval for this information to
return to staff for approval with the review of working drawings. Part of the reason for
postponing the review of these details is that the specific equipment needed will be
dependent on the particular uses that will occupy the building. The locations of fire
suppression equipment is often postponed until building permit plan check since fire
sprinkler plans are not usually submitted until tenants are known and the particular layout
of the internal space is worked out.
3. List of Potential Uses
Appellant's Concern: The ARC should have continued action until the use permit had
been acted on and the list of allowable uses had been approved.
Staffs Response:
The ARC -is the design review commission for the City. They do not set project parking
requirements or restrict allowed uses. The ARC does review the layout, design and
landscaping for project parking lots. Staff specifically scheduled the review of the use
permit for after ARC consideration of the project in order that any outstanding use - related
issues that came up in the review of the design could be appropriately addressed.
4. Building Height
Appellant's Concern: The proposed building at 35 feet in height is out of scale with
other projects in the vicinity.
Staffs Response:
The maximum allowed building height for the C -S zone is 35 feet. Examples of more
recently approved projects in close proximity to the project site of similar scale are the
Staples project which was approved with a 35 -foot building height and the approved, but
not yet constructed, Parkside Research and Development Park on Orcutt Road which
proposed two- and three -story buildings. Many of.the properties in the vicinity of the
project site were formerly rural home sites in the County and have not been developed to
their full urban potential. Therefore, some of the existing structures on these sites may be
lower in height than the proposed building.
To back up his contentions that the proposed building is too tall, Mr. Marshall cites two
criterion from the ARC Guidelines, specifically whether the project will be a good
3.3
Council Agenda Repk Acacia Creek Commercial Center tC 88 -97)
Page 4
neighbor and whether it follows the principles of good design. In supporting the project,
the ARC felt that the project was consistent with the guidelines, and did not feel that the
proposed 35 -foot building height was inappropriate at this setting.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal and denying the project (ARC 88-
97), based on findings.
2. Adopt Draft Resolution C, upholding the appeal and sending the project back to the
ARC for re- consideration of the issues cited in Mr. Marshall's appeal.
3. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached:
1. - Draft Resolutions
2. - Appeal to City Council received 12 -1 -97
3. - ARC approval letter dated 11 -21 -97
4. - Draft 11 -17 -97 ARC minutes
5. - 11 -17 -97 ARC report and attachments
6. - A 88 -97 follow -up letter dated 12 -9 -97
Enclosed:
Project plans
arc \88 -97 (Acacia Creek appeal report)
3 -V
Draft Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS
ACTION, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL
TO THE ACACIA CREEK COMMERCIAL CENTER AT
3450 BROAD STREET (ARC 88 -97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of November 17, 1997, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (ER 88 -97) as prepared by staff, reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission,
and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findiniz. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC 88 -97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed project as designed and conditioned is consistent with the general criteria
contained in the City's architectural review guidelines.
2. Project approval by the ARC included a creek setback exception for portions of a required
City bicycle path through the site in accordance with the findings included in the ARC
action letter per SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.025 G.
3. The building scale and amount of parking provided are appropriate for a project developed
in the C -S zone.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied, and the action of the ARC to grant
final approval to the project is upheld.
Resolution No. (1998 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 6' day of January, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
res\arc 88 -97 (Acacia Ck. - deny)
3 -G
Draft Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS
ACTION, THEREBY DENYING THE FINAL ARC APPROVAL OF
THE ACACIA CREEK COMMERCIAL CENTER AT
3450 BROAD STREET (ARC 88 -97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of November 17, 1997, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (ER 88 -97) as prepared by staff, reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission,
and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findiniz. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC 88 -97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent with the criteria contained
in the City's architectural review guidelines.
2. The building scale and amount of parking provided are inappropriate for a project
developed in the C -S zone.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby upheld, and the action of the ARC to grant
final approval to the project is denied.
2-7
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6' day of January; 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
�i IR;
FJ, F4 J�F!Illl 1111 1� i�I�
r
reslarc 88 -97 (Acacia Ck. - deny)
.—?—F
Draft Resolution "C"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS
ACTION, THEREBY DIRECTING THE ARC TO RECONSIDER
CERTAIN ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE ACACIA CREEK COMMERCIAL CENTER AT
3450 BROAD STREET (ARC 88 -97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of November 17, 1997, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (ER 88 -97) as prepared by staff, reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission,
and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findin . That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC 88 -97), the appellant's statement, staff, recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The issues raised in the appellant's letter to the Council raise legitimate concerns that the
ARC should reconsider prior to granting the project final approval.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby upheld, and the ARC shall reconsider the
project with direction to focus on the following issues:
1. total habitable area within the building;
2. location of mechanical and other equipment; and
3. height of the proposed building.
3-9
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,seconded by
, and on the following roll call vote:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6' day of January; 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
reslarc 88 -97 (reconsider)
3- /C�
city of
s Luis OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
endered on %/7
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting -the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
CGI on ///21,/ 7
Name /Department (D te)
r-
Appellant:r%(�
zme/Title inail g Address (& Zip Code)
-.0
Home Phone' Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for
Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the'following department(s): RECEIVED
lJJ J �.
DEC 0 1 1997
- SL0 CITY CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office 3 //
ZA Now
i��.i -_.' r _ '�
N -a ch ment 2 3 -/z
LITIA
51v�
WAN
M- MaArl� 0�1 ISM A "WM-1 WOUNPROW
AMR
ij
0 ON
3-6
ITA
T,�f, l3c XDix6i 71-,4 /S ZAWL4 Zo 6
r, I I ME ��...
9-
cy1.} f 71
A7— L�Vc klr— Z'Z
FC26� ra -L e
,
�C�1�I +�Y •
4s L 7yr•t4-
r, I I ME ��...
9-
�����
/J
,Il 11 city of s buss oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
November 21, 1997
Acacia Creek, LLC
Attn: Hamish Marshall
555 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: ARC and ER 78 -97: 3450 Broad Street
ARC reviewed � commer►-�_—d an
Dear Applicant: 4hp, irt; h'a 5}-Udy, bu+ !e&ri n9
Ogic.er w41 4mke Ana.1 ac;Kort on
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meetin of November 17, 1997, granted final the
approval to the project and 'e-n-v-ir-o-n-'mte-n-t-al--re—v-i-e-v7,1 including a creek setback exception, and,
based on the following findings, and with conditions and code requirements: dowmen-� w 4ha
Findings review of 4h e
a ryi i n. Utre P-errn i i
The location and design of the bicycle path will minimize impacts to scenic resources,
water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest,
and movement, with opportunities for enhanced native planting in the riparian corridor
including the area across the channel from the proposed bicycle path.
2. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
3. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City- adopted plans, specifically
the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, nor increase the adverse environmental effects
of implementing such plans.
4. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the irregular shape and the
requirement to install a Class I City bicycle path through the property, which do not
apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
5. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege - -an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning because all other project improvements including buildings and parking lot
areas fully comply with the City's creek setback ordinance.
6. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area of the project or downstream.
A +a ck men-I- 3
/tOS The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
l�`� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410.
ARC 88 -97
Page 2
7. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on October 28, 1997, which describes significant
environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative
Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study
ER 88 -97 being incorporated into the project.
Conditions
Design Issues
1. Building elevations shall use metal siding on the roof and sides of the building and
the colors to come back to the Commission.
2. The final metal siding selected shall be matte silver metal with a hammered look and
clearly not be reflective because of the site's location within the boundaries of the
County Airport Land Use Plan.
3. The western elevation of the new building shall be pulled back 10 feet from the final
location of the bike path to the east to provide a greater creek setback in this area and
to allow more landscaping to be installed next to the building as buffer to the path.
However in no case shall the building be located closer than 20 feet from the top of
bank.
4. The landscaping plan shall be modified to substitute a native plant material for the
Myoporum pacificum and substitute Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis.
5. Plans to relocate the house and other structures to another site in the City will require
the review and approval of the ARC.
6. A sign program shall return to the ARC for review and approval when specific project
tenants are known.
7. Lighting standards used in parking lots shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height from
the parking surface to the top of fixture. Specific illumination levels shall be included
in plans submitted for a building permit.
8. The. applicant shall submit the following items to Planning staff for review and
approval:
• Amount of habitable space at the mezzanine level (potentially affects parking).
• Bicycle locker locations or qualifying interior space to store bicycles.
• Locations of mechanical and fire suppression equipment and screening proposals.
31�
ARC 88 -97
Page 3
Notes 18 and 19 on Sheet C -1 call out some of these items, but their locations are not
shown on the plan.
• List of proposed uses at the site (critical for use permit review).
• Minimum of two outdoor eating areas for building occupants.
Public Right -of -Way
9. Standard frontage improvements and street pave -out shall be installed.
10. The developer shall pay this property's pro -rata share of the Sacramento Drive
bridge /extension to Orcutt Road, prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. Additional street lighting will be required to be installed to-the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
Grading & Drainage
12. The "B" flood zone through this property is primarily contained within the creek
banks of Acacia Creek. However, the developer will be required to submit hydraulic
calculations indicating the added storm run -off from this site due to the proposed
improvements. If the calculations indicate any rise in the 100 -yr storm water surface
elevation, additional drainage improvements may be required to mitigate the increase
(including but not limited to detention facilities).
Transportation
13. Opposite the new driveway on Broad Street the developer shall install Caltrans
approved state standard one -way signage in the existing raised median.
14. The applicant shall comply with the.required mitigation measures supported by the
City Traffic Engineer and Caltrans which are based on the traffic study prepared by
CCS Planning and Engineering (September 1997).
15. The applicant shall install a Class I Bicycle Path consistent with the adopted 1993
Bicycle Transportation Plan:
A. Dedicate a public access easement along the southeastern edge of Acacia to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian path.
B. Install appropriate ramps that allow access to the easement area from
Sacramento Drive and Broad Street rights -of -way.
3?'S
ARC 88 -97.
Page 4
C. Install a Class I bicycle_ path within the easement area (avoiding major
riparian vegetation) consistent with Caltrans standards.
16. The applicant shall provide the following bicycle parking facilities:
A. Bicycle racks of the inverted "U" or "wave" design that can accommodate
at least six (6) bicycles. One rack shall be install along the west side of the
building in close proximity to the public entrance; two bicycle racks shall
be installed along the building's southern elevation, each in close
proximity to public entrances.
B. Bicycle lockers that can accommodate ten (10) bicycle shall be provided
on site to serve project employees. Lockable room(s) inside the building
that are exclusively reserved for bicycle storage may satisfy this
requirement.
Fire Hydrants
17. The applicant shall install fire hydrants per SLO FD Development Guide Standards that
are capable of supplying the required fire -flows. Additional fire hydrants will be
required along Sacramento Drive and Broad Street
Water, Sewer & Utilities
18. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the
supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off -site deficiency exists, the
owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
Code Requirements
1. The applicant shall install street trees per City Standards (the number of trees is
determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
2. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Water and Sewer impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. Sewer lift station fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. An approved graphic annunciator panel shall be installed in conjunction with the
required automatic fire- sprinkler and fire -alarm systems for the building
ARC 88 -97
Page 5
6. If/when additional traffic controls are required, an Opticom system shall be installed.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of
the action. The appeal period will expire on Monday, December 1, 1997 at 5:00 p.m.. An appeal
may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the
Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development
Director may grant a single one -year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781 -7168.
Sincerely,
Development Review Manager
RW:mk
cc: Steve Pults, AIA
3Z
Draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - November 17, 1997
PRESENT: Commrs. James Aiken, Woody Combrink, Linda Day, Curtis Illingworth, Laura
Joines - Novotny, Alice Loh, and Ron Regier
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner and Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
PROJECTS:
ARC & ER 88 -97: 3450 Broad Street: Review of a 52,000 square foot commercial
building, site improvements, and an exception to the City Creek Setback Regulations; C-
S-S zone; Acacia Creek, LLC., applicant.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report, recommending
providing comments on the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and granting final
approval to the project, including a creek setback exception, based on findings, and with
conditions and code requirements.
Commr. Loh asked if including the setback along the creek would result in reduction in size of
the building.
Whisenand responded yes, more than likely it would.
Commr. Illingworth asked about bike paths and the type of improvement.
Whisenand stated that the City standards will be applied.
Steve Pults addressed the Commission and said they agreed with the staff recommendations
except for the additional 10' setback. He presented a colored elevation of the project.
Commr. Loh referenced the architectural style with the adjoining development and questioned
the use of wood siding.
Hamish Marshall, representative, stated he chose the material based on projects that he saw in
other areas. He wanted a more natural look and more character. He said they felt it was nicer
than the existing development in the area.
A mach w1en+4
3 -2l
ARC Minutes
November 17, 1997
Page 2
Commr. Loh asked about demolition of the structures on the property.
Hamish responded that the main house and water tower would be re- located and the other
structures would be removed.
Commr. Loh asked if all the existing wood structures were going to be removed, why would they
use wood for the new building.
Pults stated they would like to use wood structures and not duplicate the concrete box structure.
Commr. Illingworth asked if the wood was going to be stained.
Pults responded yes.
Commr. Loh questioned the reason for the vines.
Pults stated it was for stabilization of the creek.
Commr. Regier was concerned about keeping the driveway from becoming a cut through.
Marshall stated that the traffic study recommended speed bumps but they are proposing speed
tables.
Commr. Joines - Novotny asked about separation of the bike path and the parking area.
Pults said that the curb would keep them separated.
Commr. Joines - Novotny asked about trading of riparian habitat.
Pults addressed the proposed enhancement on the other side of the creek.
Commr. Joines - Novotny discussed using alternative parking so other uses (i.e. picnic tables) can
be placed if the parking demand is low.
Commr. Loh asked where the high voltage line was located.
Marshall described the utility easement but said that staff was recommending that the lines be
placed underground.
Open Public Hearing
Roger Marshall, manager at 3470 Broad, said he calculated the floor area and clear story size
.3- .2 2
ARC Minutes
November 17, 1997
Page 3
(gross floor area). He questioned whether the planned parking would be sufficient. He also
asked about truck circulation.
Ron Whisenand responded about parking being critical.
Roger Marshall asked why a 35' tall building was needed.
Commr. Loh stated she wanted the staff to check the square footage carefully.
Steve Pults said the area to be used would be based on the parking requirements per City
standards.
Commr. Joines - Novotny asked about lot coverage. Whisenand responded it was 75% coverage.
She asked if the height limit was 35' and Ron stated yes.
Roger Marshall stated he felt that the driveway would become a street and expressed concern
over the high voltage poles on the property. He stated he has had difficulty dealing with PG & E
in the past. He was also concerned with any signs in the median and cars hitting them. He felt
that a bike path was a waste of the applicant's money because there is not enough room to get it
under Broad Street. He thought it would be better down Sacramento. He wondered if the project
would destroy the creek bank. Marshall asked why wood was chosen and thought it should be
changed to metal of a different color. He did not think that wood was appropriate.
Hamish Marshall addressed the cut through traffic issue and said the road is not used much. He
stated that he lives there and said that the traffic study addressed the issue and they have agreed
to all mitigation measures.
Commr. Aiken said he had a concern with the choice of wood siding. He noted it can be
beautiful but does not last long.
Marshall said they would take the ARC's direction on the siding issue.
Pat Smith stated if they could get the look and details through the use of metal, they would be
better off.
Commr. Illingworth said the project has improved over the prior submittal but he is still
concerned with colors and materials. He also questioned galvanized metal and how it would
look in 10 years. He noted he would like to see an outdoor use area and a minimum of 5'
between the bike path and the building.
Commr. Combrink agreed with Commr. Illingworth.
2 -,;,)3
ARC Minutes
November 17, 1997
Page 4
Commr. Day asked why the additional ten feet and Whisenand explained it would provide the
greatest setback for the building. Day stated that she likes the look of wood siding but the
maintenance problem could dictate the use of other materials. She said she is not opposed to the
height and square footage provided that parking meets the City standards. She noted the clear
story would provide natural day lighting.
Commr. Regier indicated that 5' should be the minimum separation between the building and the
bike path. He noted that the wood siding is going to be a problem. He insisted on an outdoor
eating area. He also questioned whether speed tables would be sufficient.
Commr. Joines- Novotny said she would like to see the 10' setback.
Commr. Loh agreed that metal should be used provided it was not galvanized. She asked if they
could add the square footage on the east elevation. She also would encourage use of the creek
area for eating, but felt a specific area may not be needed. She stated she would like to see a
landscape plan.
Commr. Aiken agreed with Commrs. Illingworth and Day's comments. He stated that he is not
opposed to galvanized material and prefers metal rather than wood. He also favored an outdoor
use area and would like a minimum of 5' from the bike path to the building.
Commr. Illingworth moved to grant final approval including the creek setback exception with the
following findings and conditions:
Findings
1. The location and design of the bicycle path will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water
quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement, with opportunities for enhanced native planting in the riparian corridor including
the area across the channel from the proposed bicycle path.
2. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that
are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
3. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City- adopted plans, specifically the
City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of
implementing such plans.
4. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the irregular shape and the
requirement to install a Class I City bicycle path through the property, which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2 .2y
ARC Minutes
November 17, 1997
Page 5
5. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege - -an entitlement inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because all other
project improvements including buildings and parking lot areas fully comply with the City's
creek setback ordinance.
6. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
area of the project or downstream.
7. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on October 28, 1997, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 88 -97 being incorporated into the
project.
Conditions
Design Issues
1. Building elevations shall use metal siding on the roof and sides of the building. The colors
are to come back to the Commission.
2. The final metal siding selected shall be matte silver metal with a hammered look and clearly
not be reflective because of the site's location within the boundaries of the County Airport
Land Use Plan.
3. The western elevation of the new building shall be pulled back 10 feet from the final
location of the bike path to the east to provide a greater creek setback in this area and to allow
more landscaping to be installed next to the building as buffer to the path. However, in no
case shall the building be located closer than 20 feet from the top of the bank.
4. The landscaping plan shall be modified to substitute a native plant material for the
Myoporum pacificum and substitute Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis.
5. Plans to relocate the house and other structures to another site in the City will require the
review and approval of the ARC.
6. A sign program shall return to the ARC for review and approval when specific project
tenants are known.
7. Lighting standards used in parking lots shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height from the
,F-a5`
-a5`
ARC Minutes
November 17, 1997
Page 6
parking surface to the top of fixture. Specific illumination levels shall be included in plans
submitted for a building permit.
8. The applicant shall submit the following items to Planning staff for review and approval:
• Amount of habitable space at the mezzanine level (potentially affects parking).
• Bicycle locker locations or qualifying interior space to store bicycles.
• Locations of mechanical and fire suppression equipment and screening proposals. Notes 18
and 19 on Sheet C -1 call out some of these items, but their locations are not shown on the
plan.
• List of proposed uses at the site (critical for use permit review).
• Minimum of two outdoor eating areas for building occupants.
Commr. Regier seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Regier, Aiken, Combrink, Day, Joines- Novotny, Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
2. V 117 -96 and ARC 117 -96: 281 Santa Rosa Street: Request to allow a reduced street
yard from 10' to 0' for awning structure and review of new awning and retractable
extension over patio of restaurant; C -T zone; Dennis Bloom, applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the fixed
awning structure with triple arched face, based on findings, and denial of the requested variance,
which would permit the retractable extension, based on findings.
Russ Meznarich, representative, clarified the proposal and explained the reasons for the design.
He stated that the design allows heat to be retained and is adaptable to changing weather
conditions.
Jerry Wold stated that the purpose is to make the patio comfortable and look attractive. The
awning would be turquoise and white to match the existing building colors. He noted that
umbrellas don't hold up and the awning will be made of weather -proof material.
JI_21�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1
BY: Pam Ricci, PFZ Planner MEETING DATE: November 17, 1997
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager(,��
FILE NUMBER: ARC 88 -97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3450 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Review of plans to develop a new, approximately 51,000 square -foot, commercial
building on the east side of Broad Street, north of Capitolio Way.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Provide comments on the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and grant final approval to
the project, including a creek setback exception, based on findings, and with conditions and code
requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
The applicant would like to develop a new commercial building containing about 51,000 square feet of
floor area (reduced about 1,000 square feet from previously reviewed plans) No specific tenants or
uses have yet been identified for the building. Proposed parking is located on the north and south sides
of the building. The project would have access on Broad Street, as well as three driveways to
Sacramento Drive. The applicant is requesting final approval of project plans by the ARC.
Previous Review
At the request of the applicant, the project was scheduled for a conceptual review by the ARC on
September 15, 1997. At that meeting, the ARC continued action on the project with direction (see
attached follow -up letter and minutes). The revisions made to the plans to respond to ARC direction
are highlighted in the Evaluation section of this report.
Data Summary
Address: 3450 Broad Street
Applicant: Acacia Creek, LLC
Representative: Hamish Marshall
Zoning: C -S -S (Service Commercial with the Special Consideration Overlay)
General Plan: Services & Manufacturing
Aga6kynen+ 5
'? a7
ARC 88 -97
Page 2
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by
the Development Review Manager on October 28, 1997.
Project Action Deadline: January 12, 1998
Site Description
The site contains 3.7 acres and is currently developed with an old house, a bam, and several small
accessory buildings. The property has frontage on both Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. Acacia
Creek crosses the site in the northwestern corner. Significant vegetation includes a number of pine
trees near the creek and behind accessory buildings in the south central part of the site.
EVALUATION
The following paragraphs highlight project changes in response to ARC direction:
1. Administrative Use Permit
The site is zoned C -S -S, Service Commercial with the Special Consideration Overlay. The "S" overlay
requires the processing of an administrative use permit with development to insure that the particular
special considerations associated with this site are addressed. In addition, the use permit can be
conditioned to limit uses if there are particular uses that may raise issues at the site.
The administrative use permit is currently scheduled for hearing on Friday, November 21, 1997. The
Hearing Officer will consider the initial study at that meeting and make an official environmental
determination on the project. Therefore, the ARC does not need to act on the recommended Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures, other than to provide any input to the Hearing Officer on its
contents.
2. Parking
A total of 139 parking spaces are shown on the revised site plan, seven less than proposed on the last
set of plans that the ARC reviewed. With the revised plan, a parking ratio of one space for each 366
square feet of floor area is proposed.
In the C -S zone, there are a range of different allowed use with divergent parking requirements. Some
office and retail uses have a requirement of 1:300 and some warehousing uses have a requirement of
1:1,500. The applicant's proposed amount of parking seems more then adequate for typical C -S
development. However, it should be noted that depending on how the building space is leased, parking
may be an issue in the future.
The City's Parking & Driveway Standards call for a landscaped planter after every six parking spaces
in lots. Most of the parking bays shown on the plan have been modified to comply with this standard.
The ARC directed the applicant to "address the concern for vehicles using the southerly driveway as
a shortcut between Broad Street and Sacramento." Consistent with the mitigation included in the
3 —�R
ARC 88 -97
Page 3
attached initial study based on the required traffic study, speed tables have been added to slow vehicles
using this driveway and to deter cut - through traffic between the two streets.
3. Building Design
The proposed metal building will be 35 feet high with a clerestory above the main floor. Building
features include gable ends, clerestory windows, large window sections with divided lites, metal
awnings, roll -up doors, storefront systems and shed roofs that help add interest and create a less
massive appearance to this very large building.
The ARC directed that "the loading area for the project be relocated from the west elevation facing
Broad Street to a less visible location." The loading area is now proposed in the center of the north
elevation. Staff supports this change and feels that it is consistent with ARC direction.
The overall appearance of the project when viewed from Broad Street has also been improved by
changes to the south elevation of the building. Two angled entries with gable ends rising to the full
building height have been added to either side of the elevation. These symmetrical entry features add
character to the building by providing focal points visible from the two adjoining streets and also by
defining main building entries.
4. Colors & Materials
A colors and materials board has been submitted for ARC review and will be available for viewing at
the meeting. The elevations call out proposed materials and a paper copy of the color schedule is
attached to this report. As with previous plans, the elevations show metal siding for the main body of
the building, metal roofing and aluminum storefronts. A new material added to plans is 1 x 6 redwood
siding. The redwood siding is shown on the taller portions of the building with gable end roofs.
The proposed siding and roofing is a matte silver metal with a hammered look. The redwood siding
would have a warm medium brown stain and the storefront systems and roll -up doors would be black.
The proposed combination of colors and materials is handsome and unique. However, staff would
suggest that the wood siding be used on all similar building features with gable ends. Some of the call -
outs on the elevations appear to be incorrect. An additional concern is that the metal siding clearly not
be reflective because of the site's location within the boundaries of the County Airport Land Use Plan.
5. Relationship to Acacia Creek
Acacia Creek runs through the northwestern portion of the site. Previous plans showed that proposed
parking lot areas and the building complied with a 20 -foot setback from the top of creek bank.
However, there are portions of the northern part of the creek where willows and other riparian plants
extend beyond the top of bank. In those cases, the 20 -foot creek setback would be measured from the
edge of the riparian vegetation. The previous plans showed that parking lot areas and driveways
encroached into about 900 square feet of this setback area
The City's Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik has reviewed project plans. He has indicated that
3 -.2-9
ARC 88 -97
Page 4
there could be some flexibility with the review of this project "to allow some encroachments into the
required creek setback area in exchange for enhanced planting of an area of the project site that is
actually on the other side of the creek channel. " He also notes that parking lot planters that border
the creek area could be expanded to merge with creek -side planting and maximize the riparian
plantings. The ARC also indicated its support for these concepts with its previous review of the
project.
A City bike path that is planned along the creek corridor through the project site further complicates
site planning. The Public Works Department has specified an 8 -foot wide paved Class 1 bicycle path
be installed. The path would connect bike lanes on Broad Street with Sacramento Drive and eventually
other paths in the railroad right -of -way. ARC direction from the last meeting was to "either reroute
the required bicycle path to another part of the site, or to develop it as planned along the creek
corridor, but outside of the required creek setback."
Since the last meeting, members of City staff have met several times with the applicant and his
designer to come up with a solution to the bike path issue. The first issue of where the bicycle path
would be located on the site has been settled. It needs to be located along the creek corridor as shown
on the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, rather than in another part of the site.
The revised site plan now shows that all portions of the building and all parking lot areas fully comply
with the City's creek setback ordinance. Plans also show the location of a Class I bicycle path through
the site with a 10 -foot wide easement allowing for development of an 8 -foot wide asphalt path with
shoulders on either side. The proposed path runs along the creek corridor and is separated from project
driveways and parking lot areas. Parts of the proposed bicycle path do encroach into the required creek
setback. Staff has determined that if any part of the bicycle path is located within the required creek
setback, then an exception to the creek setback ordinance contained in the zoning regulations needs to
be requested.
From an environmental standpoint, staff has indicated that it would support minor encroachments of
the bike path into the creek setback, especially in the vicinity of the site where the path would pass near
the building. This is because the habitat value of the creek in the southwestern part of the site is not as
rich as it is in the northern part of the site. The revised site plan indicates that the bicycle path
encroaches into about 700 square feet of the northern creek setback area.
Staff supports granting a creek setback exception to allow the bicycle path to be located through the
site as generally proposed. Specific findings in support of an exception are included in the Staff
Recommendation. The revised plan reflects the efforts of the applicant to work with staff to come up
with an acceptable compromise. However, staff is suggesting a condition to modify the western
elevation of the new building to pull it back about 10 feet to the east (farther away from the location of
the bicycle path). This will provide a greater creek setback in this area and to allow more landscaping
to be installed next to the building as buffer to the path.
6. Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated May 1997 to
9-30
ARC 88 -97
Page 5
comply with the requirement contained in the zoning regulations for a biological survey to accompany
creek setback exception requests. The report indicates that vegetation on the site consists of
ornamental plantings around the buildings in the front of the parcel, open grassland (pasture) in the
back, and a corridor of riparian vegetation and wetlands along Acacia Creek.
The attached initial study contains a mitigation measure that the ARC approve a landscaping/creek
restoration plan along with plans submitted for final review. The mitigation measure also calls for
more detailed landscaping information to be included in plans for a building permit which includes
proposals for creek bank stabilization for areas where erosion has occurred.
Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the project landscaping plan. The
Natural Resources Manager prepared a memo (attached) which suggests that two of the established
non - native plants in the riparian area that Dr. Holland's report recommended be replaced remain (the
eucalyptus trees for wildlife habitat value and the vinca for creek bank stabilization). He also suggests
that a native plant material be substituted for the Myoporum pacificum and that Cercis occidentalis be
substituted for the Cercis canadensis.
Staff feels that the submitted landscaping plan responds well to the following previous direction:
• Modify the landscaping plan to include appropriate plantings in the creek setback area (per City-
sanctioned list of native riparian plants).
• Include proposals for landscaping the other side of the creek that is part of the project site.
• Expand parking lot planters where feasible to include riparian plantings.
• Show the proposed bike path on the site and landscaping plans with planned transitions to the
adjacent streets.
• Show how the bike path will be buffered from the creek setback area and adjacent developed areas.
7. Demolitions
The City's land use inventory for the site indicates that the existing house on the property was built
about 1900. It is currently not on any City historical lists. The applicant indicates that plans are to
move the house to another location, rather than demolish it. Staff has requested that the applicant
prepare a written statement indicating what the plans are for the existing buildings on the site. The
preference would be to relocate the building to another site within the City limits. Plans to relocate the
house to another site in the City would require the review and approval of the ARC.
8. Signaze
The landscaping plan shows two monument signs located at the southernmost driveway off of
Sacramento Drive and the driveway off of Broad Street. However, there are no details of signage
included with plans. Staff recommends that a sign program return to the ARC when tenants are
known.
3 3/
-®
ARC 88 -97
Page 6
9. Lighting
Lighting locations are shown on the site plan and fixture details are attached to this report. Pole
heights for light standards are called out at 20 feet which is consistent with established City guidelines.
Fixtures appear to be appropriate "shoe box" types that will direct downward and prevent light from
trespassing onto adjacent properties. Specific illumination levels are not called out on plans and may
be a concern. Staff is recommending that this information return in plans submitted for a building
permit.
10. Additional Information
Beyond the identified items already mentioned in this report, the applicant also needs to submit the
following items to Planning staff for review and approval:
• Amount of habitable space at the mezzanine level (potentially affects parking).
• Bicycle locker locations or qualifying interior space to store bicycles.
• Locations of mechanical and fire suppression equipment and screening proposals. Notes 18 and 19
on Sheet C -1 call out some of these items, but their locations are not shown on the plan.
• List of proposed uses at the site (critical for use permit review).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Chant schematic with direction on items to return to the Commission with final review of plans.
2. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired
information or needed revisions to plans.
3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments from other department shave been incorporated into conditions of approval and code
requirements noted below. The comments from other City departments and other are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide comments on the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and grant final approval to
the project, including a creek setback exception, based on the following findings, and with conditions
and code requirements.
Findinp,s
The location and design of the bicycle path will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, with
opportunities for enhanced native planting in the riparian corridor including the area across the
channel from the proposed bicycle path.
33.2
ARC 88 -97
Page 7
2. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that are
needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
3. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City- adopted plans, specifically the City's
Bicycle Transportation Plan, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such
plans.
4. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the irregular shape and the requirement to
install a Class I City bicycle path through the property, which do not apply generally to land in the
vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
5. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege - -an entitlement inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because all other project
improvements including buildings and parking lot areas fully comply with the City's creek setback
ordinance.
6. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area
of the project or downstream.
7. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 28, 1997, which describes significant environmental impacts associated
with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the
attached initial study ER 88 -97 being incorporated into the project.
Conditions
Design Issues
1. Building elevations shall be corrected to show wood siding used on all similar building features
with gable ends.
2. The final metal siding selected shall be matte silver metal with a hammered look and clearly not be
reflective because of the site's location within the boundaries of the County Airport Land Use Plan.
3. The western elevation of the new building shall be pulled back about 10 feet to the east (farther
away from the location of the bicycle path) to provide a greater creek setback in this area and to
allow more landscaping to be installed next to the building as buffer to the path.
4. The landscaping plan shall be modified to substitute a native plant material for the Myoporum
pacifrcum and substitute Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis.
5. Plans to relocate the house and other structures to another site in the City will require the review
and approval of the ARC.
-33
o
ARC 88 -97
Page 8
6. A sign program shall return to the ARC for review and approval when specific project tenants are
known.
7. Lighting standards used in parking lots shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height from base to the
top of fixture. Specific illumination levels shall be included in plans submitted for a building
permit.
8. The applicant shall submit the following items to Planning staff for review and approval:
• Amount of habitable space at the mezzanine level (potentially affects parking).
• Bicycle locker locations or qualifying interior space to store bicycles.
• Locations of mechanical and fire suppression equipment and screening proposals. Notes 18 and 19
on Sheet C -1 call out some of these items, but their locations are not shown on the plan.
• List of proposed uses at the site (critical for use permit review).
Public Right -of -Way
9. Standard frontage improvements and street pave -out shall be installed.
10. The developer shall pay this property's pro -rata share of the Sacramento Drive bridge /extension to
Orcutt Road, prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. Additional street lighting will be required to be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works and Caltrans.
Grading & Drainage
12. The "B" flood zone through this property is primarily contained within the creek banks of Acacia
Creek. However, the developer will be required to submit hydraulic calculations indicating the
added storm run -off from this site due to the proposed improvements. If the calculations indicate
any rise in the 100 -yr storm water surface elevation, additional drainage improvements may be
required to mitigate the increase (including but not limited to detention facilities).
Transportation
13. Opposite the new driveway on Broad Street the developer shall install Caltrans approved state
standard one -way signage in the existing raised median.
14. The applicant shall comply with the required mitigation measures supported by the City Traffic
Engineer and Caltrans which are based on the traffic study prepared by CCS Planning and
Engineering (September 1997).
15. The applicant shall install a Class I Bicycle Path consistent with the adopted 1993 Bicycle
Transportation Plan:
ARC 88 -97
Page 9
A. Dedicate a public access easement along the southeastern edge of Acacia to accommodate
bicycle and pedestrian path.
B. Install appropriate ramps that allow access to the easement area from Sacramento Drive
and Broad Street rights -of -way.
C. Install a Class I bicycle path within the easement area (avoiding major riparian
vegetation) consistent with Caltrans standards.
16. The applicant shall provide the following bicycle parking facilities:
A. Bicycle racks of the inverted "U" or "wave" design that can accommodate at least six
(6) bicycles. One rack shall be install along the west side of the building in close
proximity to the public entrance; two bicycle racks shall be installed along the
building's southern elevation, each in close proximity to public entrances.
B. Bicycle lockers that can accommodate ten (10) bicycle shall be provided on site to serve
project employees. Lockable room(s) inside the building that are exclusively reserved
for bicycle storage may satisfy this requirement.
Fire Hydrants
17. The applicant shall install fire hydrants per SLO FD Development Guide Standards that are capable of
supplying the required fire -flows. Additional fire hydrants will be required along Sacramento Drive
and Broad Street
Water, Sewer & Utilities
18. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that
the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is
discovered that an off -site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as
a part of the overall project.
Code Requirements
1. The applicant shall install street trees per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one
tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
2. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Water and Sewer impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. Sewer lift station fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3_�/
ARC 88 -97
Page 10
5. An approved graphic annunciator panel shall be installed in conjunction with the required automatic
fire - sprinkler and fire -alarm systems for the building
6. If/when additional traffic controls are required, an Opticom system shall be installed.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Current site plan
Previously reviewed site plans
ARC follow -up letter and 9 =15 -97 ARC minutes
Color schedule
Lighting fixture details
Memo from Neil Havlik with riparian plan list
Memos from Public Works, Fire, CalTrans & APCD
Initial Study ER 88 -97
arc \88 -97 -2 (Acacia Creek)
Tnese i �e,-rns aye avai la61e
Qr review in }he Council
readn� -ale.
3-36
NNE
ORCUTT
r.fr ..
C-
�pLACE pO
N •' �O
S
� rA�
J
jo ... u
I e.a •s.w wx �_ .� �:
a o .
'O tLl
.sf
�.�.. uss.
rac r�ei�
...m •x+•
j
ii
im,pi
M-PD
M
a
1
M -S /
VICINITY MAP ARC 88 -97
345® BROAD
ml.
J •�s
r OWF
4'`r
I.
3 3�
_ N
xm
+� <
r
a N.
=n
n
b
v
�i
m
m
a
n
x
1
I
}17
r
t
• a T
l
y
o
1� ; Fx
+• g l a �: x' F g
1 g ,
m _
s m
t� ���9� ;al tt Illlit Ii if
�1 log
g a
; It
Om
5m 11111
Im
�
3 •-3F
N
m (�
Y Q
N
^c
V
Zr
r-
c
MP
ow
r
V „ 7 rx rl�i li
.3 3i
I. �a
c y
v
0
r
m
�
a
r m
z
z z
s
�
x
n
O a
O m
CI
r
Q
L
•
a
m
a
n
c
N
f
N
ern
�i
9y
r n
N9
V1
D
N 444111111
T N
T N
c
MP
ow
r
V „ 7 rx rl�i li
.3 3i
o
�7A
I %&
I it
20
3' -0
,'/ PLANr1NG
+ 5F
Ir :4- A<1
17 �3,
I 2si,cas
it I°_
5 SP (3) S. r.'
rO
.............
5 -,W 63 S.C. I
68'- 1011
5r (a S.6'
771- 5n
SP (s 8. (,1
PLANTING
I
it sf- (2;1 S.G,
ID SP ('131 8
PLANT [..- I.: i 1 - .1 . I PL40,N-r L-1
1
tLs -0 it
r-olrflCr of Tre-VICL-l.s
Gi+e- Flan Re-v* I ewc
9- 15 -9.7
,S-40
atv of sAn tuis oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
September 25, 1997
Acacia Creek, LLC
555 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: ARC 88 -97: 3450 Broad Street
Dear Applicant:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 15, 1997 continued
consideration of your project with the following direction:
• support for some encroachment of project improvements into the required creek
setback with enhanced restoration of property on the other side of the creek located
on the same site;
• either reroute the required City bicycle path to another part of the site, or develop it
as planned along the creek corridor, but outside of the required creek setback;
• address the concern for vehicles using the southerly driveway as a shortcut between
Broad and Sacramento;
• relocate the loading area to a less visible part of the building (not facing Broad
Street);
• clarify how the clerestory level of the building will be used; and
• provide all of the information pointed out by staff in its report that is required for a
complete application.
If you have questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781 -7168.
Sincerely,
n4,hisenld
Development Review Manager
RW:mk
cc: Steve Pults
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410. 3-111
e
ARC Minutes
September 15, 1997
Page 4
ABSENT: Joines- Novotny
The motion passed.
3. ARC 88 -97; 3450 Broad Street: Review of proposed 52,000 sq. ft. commercial building;
C -S -S zone, Acacia Creek LLC., applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending continuing the project
with direction to the applicant and staff on further informational needs and necessary revisions to
address project issues. --
Steve Pults, representative, noted their understanding is that the bike path would be located in the
creek easement. He admitted that the building was a "spec" one and that it was intended to look
like an agricultural building. He noted that the variations in roof planes and windows were tools
to help minimize massing. He said they could relocate the loading area to the rear of the building
and that more planters could be created to meet parking and driveway standards.
Hamish Marshall, representative, stated they hope to save the house and the water tower also;
working with City staff on an appropriate site for them. He explained the proposal to enhance
the other side of the creek in exchange for some encroachments into the creek setback on the
project side. He noted their preference would be to have the bike path relocated to the southern
side of the site.
Public Comment:
Roger Marshall, owner of adjacent property at 3470 Broad, viewed the project as maximizing the
site. Although he mentioned that he has no problem with the physical appearance of the building
except for the mass, he stated that it would be a tall building. He also felt a landscaped median is
a hazard on highway 227. He expressed concern that no specific tenant is proposed for the site
and that certain uses could possibly create traffic issues. He thought the driveway would be used
as a cut - through for trucks and that the bike path would be a liability issue. He suggested the
high voltage lines should be put underground. He viewed the current design as a two -story
building and thought changes could be made to make it more attractive. He felt that it was
important to consider the quality of work space.
Jack Dewar described some concerns with traffic and circulation in the area. He agreed with
Roger Marshall that this will be a two -story building. He felt it was important to know what
occupancy would be going into the building.
3- Z/z
ARC Minutes
September 15, 1997
Page 5
Hamish Marshall noted a traffic study was in progress. He explained that the building would not
be consistently 35' tall, noting that many portions of the building would be lower in height.
ARC Comments:
Commr. Illingworth suggested looking at a possible change to the site plan to discourage traffic
to cut through the project. He felt it was silly to build a bike path now that doesn't connect with
anything. He stated the ARC needs to understand the proposed linkages of the proposed bike
path.
Commr. Combrink stated they should re -route the bike path or keep it out of the creek setback.
Commr. Illingworth agreed with Commr. Combrink about the bike path issue.
Commr. Regier noted that the site plan layout would encourage people to drive through the
project between Sacramento and Broad.
Commr. Illingworth stated he had an issue with the height and mass of the building, noting that it
was effectively a two story building.
Commr. Combrink indicated he had no problem with the overall building design or the range of
possible uses allowed by the underlying C -S zoning. He said the color scheme was interesting.
Commr. Day said the height of the building didn't bother her.
Commr. Illingworth summarized some other comments from the commissioners.
• The Commission supported the idea of trading some encroachment of improvements into
portions of the project side of the creek setback for enhancement of the riparian corridor on
the other side of the creek.
• They agreed with City policy that the bike path should be outside the creek setback line, but
were not absolutely sure how the bike path should be routed through the property.
o They expressed concerns about traffic.
• They basically supported the building design, but were concerned with the height.
s They agreed with staff comments on relocating the loading area to a less visible area of the
building.
Commr. Combrink moved to continue consideration of the project with the following direction:
• support for some encroachment of project improvements into the required creek setback with
enhanced restoration of property on the other side of the creek located on the same site;
3 -13
d
ARC Minutes
September 15, 1997
Page 6
0
• either reroute the required City bicycle path to another part of the site, or develop it as
planned along the creek corridor, but outside of the required creek setback;
• address the concern for vehicles using the southerly driveway as a shortcut between Broad
and Sacramento;
• relocate the loading area to a less visible part of the building (not facing Broad Street);
• clarify how the clerestory level of the building will be used; and
• provide all of the information pointed out by staff in its report that is required for a complete
application.
Commr. Day seconded the motion.
AYES: Combrink, Day, Aiken, Regier, lllingworth
NOES: None
ABSENT: Joines- Novotny
The motion passed.
4. ARC 79 -97; 651 Foothill Boulevard: Review of church and site improvements; R -4
zone, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration with mitigation, and grant final approval, based on findings and subject to
environmental mitigation measures.
Fred Scott, representative, stated the project was characterized as a four ward meeting house
building. He noted the building was sited to face Foothill Boulevard. He wanted to maintain
circulation around the building, but not encourage cut - through traffic. Scott mentioned that some
of the trees along the creek, notably eucalyptus, are not riparian. He mentioned that the Church
would like access to Ramona for the church goers, but not for the public at large. He felt the
"deep throat" driveways off of Foothill allow for stacking and he didn't agree with changing the
driveway location as suggested by Public Works' comment on page 4 of the staff report. He
described two versions of the tower, the one on the plans reviewed by the ARC (separate tower)
and the other in the elevations presented at the meeting (incorporated into the roof). He went
over the building color choices in detail and said he would like to find a sandstone that is less
pink. He noted that he wants to blend solid versions of the tile (mostly deeper tones).
Steve Nelson asked the ARC to specify a preference on the tower treatment. He indicated he