HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1998, 3 - KONA'S DECK APPEAL (ARC 58-97) °°°°
council .
j ac En oa Repont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's approval of Project Application No. ARC
58-97 —a request to remodel the rear deck and patio of Kona's Restaurant, located on Higuera
Street between Chorro and Broad Streets (726 Higuera Street), including an exception to the
City's Creek Setback Ordinance.
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
Last summer, Brad Schwan, the applicant and appellant, received approval from the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to upgrade the deck and patio area behind Kona's
restaurant located in the old Cigar Factory building at 726 Higuera Street. The ARC 7s approval
included an exception to the creek setback regulations with conditions requiring the rear patio to
be retained in brick, creating a larger open area around the oak tree, incorporating a bench in the
rear patio, noting flood zone and parking requirements, and restricting use of the rear area
consistent with the City's pedestrian easement.
On February 17, 1998, a building permit was issued for the deck and patio, consistent with the
plans and conditions approved by the ARC. The upper portion of the deck immediately behind
the restaurant has been completed for some time. During site preparation work for the brick
patio closer to the creek, the City Arborist stopped work because of concerns with fill material
being placed within the area of the root system of the large oak tree.
The Arborist advised the applicant that he would support decking, rather than the approved brick
surface in this area, to avoid the potential for damage to the roots. Attempting to recognize this
new constraint within the context of the project, Planning staff indicated that it could accept
revised plans which showed decking in the area to the extent that the brick surface was originally
approved by the ARC.
Council Agenda Report=Bona's Deck Appeal(ARC 58-9' `
Page 2
With the Arborist's support for the decking,the applicant indicated that he would like to return to
his originally proposed plans which showed the decking extending down to the edge of the wall
at the creek(old bridge abutment) and enclosing the oak tree with a small planter. Planning staff
advised the applicant that this change in plans to enlarge the deck area would require the review
and approval of the ARC. The applicant then resubmitted plans for the ARC's reconsideration.
Concurrent with resubmitting plans, the applicant continued work in the patio area, without
proper building and planning clearances, and completed the deck consistent with his preferred
extent of the decking.
ARC Review of Revised Plans
On April 20, 1998,the ARC, on a 5-2 vote (Commrs. Loh& Stevenson voting no), approved the
applicant's revised plans for decking in the rear patio area (including, but more extensive than
the area previously approved for bricks). With this approval, there were revised conditions for
the project including ones that required fixed benches, consistent with the style and materials of
existing Mission Plaza benches, and a wider opening to the deck area that connected to Plaza
walkways to the north.
The Commission was concerned that the applicant had proceeded with construction of the deck
that was inconsistent with plans previously approved by the ARC. The Commission attempted
to find a solution that allowed the decking to be retained as constructed, but also met goals to
create a space that was clearly accessible to and usable by the public.
Appeal of ARC's Action Filed
On April 23, 1998, the applicant Brad Schwan, filed an appeal of the ARC's action. His appeal
letter cites two concerns:
• First,the efficiency of the ARC;
• Second,the conditions attached to:the ARC's action on 4-20-98.
Response to Appeal Issues
Mr. Schwan's appeal letter does not elaborate on specific issues with either the ARC process or
the April 20' action. This report has been prepared to respond to the appeal of the ARC's action
on the deck_ It is not an attempt to provide an analysis of the City's architectural review process
as a whole. If.Mr. Schwan has specific ideas on how the review of projects through the City's
architectural review process could be improved, then those ideas should be put into writing. The
City Council could then consider his comments and determine if there is merit in them which
warrants further review and study by staff.
Staff feels that the ARC made an informed and appropriate decision in approving the project.
Given the circumstances of the deck being virtually completed by the time the revised deck plans
were actually considered by the ARC, the Commission was placed in a somewhat awkward and
Council Agenda Report=xona's Deck Appeal(ARC 58-97)
Page 3
difficult position for decision-making. Their decision was ultimately a fair compromise which
attempted to take into account new circumstances, while respecting the ARC's previous decision
on the project.
Since the ARC approved the appellant's modified deck design on 420-98, staff is assuming that
it is the changes to previously approved conditions that he is appealing. Condition No. 3
required fixed benches to be installed in the lower deck area to be consistent with other benches
in the Mission Plaza area. Condition No. 9 called for the opening to the lower deck area to be the
full width of the walkway to the north.
Summary of Project Issues
The applicant's proposal to demolish an old storage building on the deck behind the restaurant
and to replace the existing upper deck with a high quality hardwood called Ipe did not raise any
issues. It was the proposal to install a new deck out of the same Ipe material in the lower
patio/public access and seating area that was previously covered with bricks, like other adjacent
properties abutting Mission Plaza, that initiated concerns. The lower patio area is almost
completely located within the 20-foot creek setback area. Therefore, the applicant's proposal, to
build a deck in this area beyond where the existing bricks extended,was seen as an improvement
that was subject to the City's creek setback regulations and required an exception.
With the ARC's original review of plans on July 7, 1997, the Commission approved bricks in
this area,rather than the requested decking for three primary reasons:
• Consistency with City plans and policies,specifically the creek setback ordinance;
By limiting the amount of improvements in this area (about 70% of the setback area), the
ARC was attempting to uphold the creek setback ordinance by keeping encroachments closer
to the 50%allowed The deck as built, and approved by the ARC on 4-20-98, occupies 100%
of the setback area On the site. The report prepared for the 4-20-98 ARC meeting is attached
to this report and covers creek setback issues in more detail.
• Maintaining public use of the rear patio area;
A continuous brick surface here was felt to be more consistent with the improvements on
adjacent properties and accommodate the free flow of pedestrians through the site. The
disputed Conditions No. 3 & 9 requiring fixed benches and a wider access to the lower deck
were added with the 4-20-98 review of revised plans as a compromise. They were seen as a
way of accommodating the deck as built, but still making the general public comfortable with
using and walking through the area.
The project site is part of the original Mission Plaza area. An excerpt from the Conceptual
Plan for the City's Center ("The Downtown Plan") is attached as an illustration of the
importance of pedestrian flow through the project site and adjoining properties. Mission
.�3
Council Agenda Report-,.onals Deck Appeal(ARC 58-97)
Page 4
Plaza is one of the City's finest examples of public open space, and is used and loved by most
members of the community. New projects need to be carefully reviewed to assure that public
access and the park-like ambiance of the Plaza area are maintained.
• Protection of the large oak tree.
The City Arborist and the City's Natural Resources Manager do not object to the deck as
built in terms of the health of the very large and attractive oak tree located in the rear deck
area. However, Planning staff and the ARC originally thought that limiting improvements as
originally approved would provide a large open area around the tree and be more consistent
with the creek setback ordinance.
The City's Bridge&Pedestrian Easement
The City has an easement over the rear of the property that is for bridge and pedestrian purposes.
The attached Easement Exhibit shows the location of the easements in relationship to the
building, decks and creek. The bridge portion of the easement is no longer needed by the City
since a new bridge was built upstream to replace the old bridge that used to access this property.
The stone wall that provides the outer edge to the new deck is the former bridge abutment.
At some time in the future, the Council may wish to quitclaim the bridge easement at the rear of
this site. However, the City would want to retain our existing 10-foot pedestrian easement to
allow for the continued flow of pedestrians through this site as part of the overall Mission Plaza
master plan.
Conclusion
Since the ARC approved his deck to the full extent of completed construction, the appellant's
objections appear to be primarily with the added conditions imposed on 4-20-98 regarding the
requirements for fixed benches (Cond. # 3) and a wider opening to the deck from the north
(Cond. # 9). As shown on the pre-construction plan for the area, a Mission Plaza style bench
previously existed in the area Staff feels that the Commission's action to impose these
conditions on the project was just, and that these requirements should be a continued component
of deck approval.
The appellant's non-specified concerns with the City's architectural review process as a whole
should be made in writing and brought back for Council discussion at some time in the future
only if the Council determines that they have merit. The issue with the need to quitclaim the
bridge easement could also return for Council consideration at a future meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal and approving the project with modified
conditions,based on findings.
Council Agenda Repon _I Ona's Deck Appeal(ARC 58-97)
Page 5
2. Deny the appeal, and require the applicant to comply with the originally approved plans
dated 7-7-97 (showing 70% coverage in the creek setback area, with bricks placed over a
minimal amount of fill to protect the oak tree).
3. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached:
1. Draft Resolutions
2. Easement Exhibits and excerpt from"Downtown Plan"
3. Plans showing rear deck area(pre-development,as originally approved by ARC on 7-7-97, &
plans approved 4-20-98)
4. Appeal to City Council received 4-23-98
5. ARC approval letter dated 4-24-98
6. Draft 4-20-98 ARC minutes
7. 4-20-98 ARC report and attachments
=re 5"7-3(Kona's deck-CC appeal report)
��J
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 COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL,
WITH CONDITIONS,TO THE KONA'S DECK PROJECT
AT 726 HIGUERA STREET (ARC 58-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 19, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of April 20, 1998, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC 58-97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission Plaza.
2. The location and design of the deck will minimize impacts to scenic resources,water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest, and movement, with
incorporationof the conditions recommended by staff.
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that
are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the top of creek
bank, 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.
3-6
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
6. 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 several other
properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining areas in the creek setback.
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
area of the project or downstream-
8.
ownstream8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no purpose would
be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
SECTION 2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
action is hereby denied. Therefore, the action of the ARC to grant final approval to the project
is upheld, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall update the approved building permit to reflect project changes.
2. The applicant shall design the lower deck area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during construction to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. The applicant shall incorporate fixed benches into the design of the rear deck area that
encourages public use of the rear deck area. Benches shall be similar in finish and materials
to other existing wooden benches in the Mission Plaza area. The applicant shall also
incorporate fixed tables to coordinate with the benches.
4. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A" and shall
show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year storm elevation(196')per City datum.
5. The deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the flood
hazards (increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
6. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to the
following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner, prior to
placement of any tables and chairs.
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c. The area shall be signed to indicate that the public may use the area. The sign design
shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director and shall coordinate
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
with Mission Plaza improvements and be in character with the City of San Luis Obispo.
7. A railing is required along the edge of the deck that is a minimum of 42 inches high with a
maximum opening dimension of 4 inches between pickets, and between the bottom rail and
grade. A detail shall be included on plans showing compliance with this condition.
.8. The applicant shall provide one additional parking space for the expanded deck area as
required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
9. The opening to the lower deck shall be the full width of the existing walkway to the north.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19'b day of May, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
mey eff J ens
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
COMaHSSION'S ACTION,THEREBY AMENDING THE FINAL ARC
APPROVAL OF THE KONA'S DECK PROJECT
AT 726 HIGUERA STREET (ARC 58-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 19, 1998, and
has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the
Architectural Review Commission's action of April 20, 1998, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed
project (ARC 58-97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports
thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission
Plaza.
2. The location and design of the deck will minimise impacts to scenic resources,water
quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement,with incorporation of the conditions recommended by staff.
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans,nor increase
the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the top of
creek bank, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
3- 9
Resolution No. (195a ieries)
Page 2
that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
6. 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 several other properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining
areas in the creek setback.
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determinationthat no purpose
would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by
the exception.
SECTION 2. Anneal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action is hereby upheld. Therefore, the action of the ARC to grant final
approval to the project is modified, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall update the approved building permit to reflect project changes.
2. The applicant shall design the lower deck area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during
construction to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A" and
shall show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year storm elevation (196') per
City datum.
4. The deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the
flood hazards(increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
5. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to
the following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner,
prior to placement of any tables and chairs.
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c. The area shall be signed to indicate that the public may use the area. The sign
design shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director and shall
Resolution No. (19i,- Series)
Page 3
coordinate with Mission Plaza improvements and be in character with the City of
San Luis Obispo.
6. A railing is required along the edge of the deck that is a minimum of 42 inches high
with a maximum opening dimension of 4 inches between pickets, and between the
bottom rail and grade. A detail shall be included on plans showing compliance with
this condition.
7. The applicant shall provide one additional parking space for the expanded deck area
as required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19'b day of May, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
SITE EASEMENTS
CAk
E /
E rAT
: .:.y:..... mvc,
UPrPiKiK
l7EG K
. vLd
Q �V
SIDEWALK h-25.0
HIGUERA ST.
ATTACHMENT 2 -ice
-------
- - i
b - ---- S
M�i I
It
Ou
(1 O e R �i' / • 1 II/111/y/ p
4 �lrt i
4 Ca N O _ � I� �• �.9�.'y6
'-' I I I `{ •" //�// 4/t •/ �' 1S A3tlJlNOFI I CD •
lb
cri
I•'R' I
=ww�vL/ _p�� •� iii _p�g���, \ ��y�E:,� � i I
-_ 1 • m I
'.•ya `"�,1` 190/CP 1 �° "g '°$ �p sa ? ; W
irf5 Ir' • / 1 I-� I I�
r., • y r U 0. m'T•'�e ' I
16N A IN
�wtu
F W
-Re- r s a v
v
a
p r _
„
_ �j
Br
`- � s-a —•_'^•a`.;_��--sem}-�a--� �
M�jO a
ha I _
it u
v ,
to
a\
��i• e � `\ \ r� 8 0 k I i .
�l3
J
{
•iii __ i � � �•�' l
�� J J+g. ..1`�_ tom• '` ♦' -r
� �-4: y �,,•� �-i (' 'Y i; 'i:• -.rte �� .J
GN
/s 7 N t
mi
!4
_ aY _ � .tea- _ .:.y..Y'i•.. _ - :�:. � i..t ^.�
R IGUERA
. � r _ � '' .,�;"•�.• _ .:.. ..r.::` _—_ 'ter 3 e r" •�.. _�
EXCERPT FROM THE CONCEPTUAL
PLAN FOR THE CITY'S CENTER
�— Pa4 ioArea { Nor
+0 olevelopment
- - EXISTING SITE PLAN REFERENCE NOTES
� 1. EXISTING SHED(f0 BE REMOVED)
2. EXISTING DECK
3. EXISTING BRICK WALKWAY&PATIO(WI FAILING SURFACE AT EDC
i &AT EXISTING TREE)
f 4. EXISTING TREE(TO REMAIN)
_ 5. EXISTING WALLAT CREEK
5 6. EXISTING RAIL(PER ENGR.MISSION STYLE STD.x4240)
7, EXISTING STAIRS TO LOWER LEVEL(TO REMAIL
S. EXISTING DECK EDGE&TREE WELL
6 1 _ 9. APPROX PROPERTY LINE AT CENTERUNE OF SAN LUIS CREEK
10, EXIyTC, RNL(TO bE F-rMILT)
II, EX19T•IC� P-escH CTO ef-- REMOVED)
r�
EX IST'6 PLA*ITef-CTB REh4U N)
T
lT_1
ATTACHMENT 3 _ s
3 �
FRAMING NOTE
I. ALL ��,o�•,
6• ALL P" It 16 v14.JG-
-{. ALL oc,+uNq gE
— ! 1
— - — . Pldh cShov�li�'1�(.
- — �X+'e►'1T gYIC
— — alio PProvec
-the �� C
on- 7- 7- 97
e
line sboWih9 a i —
c�-�'aR'I"
a l
1
I - !
!
I w�l i I � GUARDF
22
I
I I � I ii � l I Illi I III
I
i i i I I I D I •�
Plans Approved
f
by ARC on 4-20'-9S
Ica
2 S f
L
I
• I I I Ii 111
I
II 1711
i 8 s I I
� II
i
I s
i
i
i 5
1
3
��IIIaBl�llllllH����i����l �IIIIIIIIIIII� a t Of SAn WIS OBIS
MENEM
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
Architectural Review Commissiffihdered on 4/20/98
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
(See attached)
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Namefritle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for =09 Date & Time Received:
c: City Aftomey
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): 01S
�. d��9 s x� l ,�� %�,�� sib► z E 80
D3
Original in City Clerk's Office
J 18
qp RFc��vFo
Brad Schwan c0"��N,yqo<Uc� 1998
73 ChorrO F�E�oPa/Spa
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405
(805) 545-0741
brad
Auunk.net
April 23, 1998
Dear City of San Luis Obispo:
I would like to appear before the next city council meeting for the
following two separate issues:
First to suggest improvements that could be made to improve the
efficiency of the ARC.
Second to appeal the ruling dictated by the ARC on April 20''
regarding the.property at 726 Higuera.
Sincerely,
Brad Schwan
���I�V�lullllll�llll�l l``II �IIIIIIII I III
Illlllllll�l
�
cityo san fills OBISpo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
April 24, 1998
Brad Schwan
73 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 58-97: 726 Higuera Street
Dear Mr. Schwan:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of April 20, 1998, granted final
approval to the revised project at 726 Higuera Street, including approval of a creek .
setback exception, based on the following findings, and subject to the following modified
conditions:
Findings
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission
Plaza.
2. The location and design of the deck will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water
quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement, with incorporation of the conditions recommended by staff.
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase
the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the top of
creek bank, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
ATTACHMENT 5
rrgOThe 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.
ARC 58-97 I
Page 2
that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in.the vicinity
with the same zoning.
6. 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 several other properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining
areas in the creek setback.
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no purpose
would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by
the exception.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall update the approved building permit to reflect project changes.
2. The applicant shall design the lower deck area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during
construction to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. The applicant shall incorporate fixed benches into the design of the rear deck area that
encourages public use of the rear deck area within the City's public access easement.
Benches shall be similar in finish and materials to other existing wooden benches in
the Mission Plaza area. The applicant shall also incorporate fixed tables to coordinate
with the benches.
4. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A" and
shall show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year stone elevation (196') per
City datum.
5. The deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the
flood hazards (increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
6. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to
the following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner,
prior to placement of any tables and chairs.
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
ARC 58-97
Page 3
c. The area shall be signed to indicate that the public may use the area. The sign
design shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director and shall
coordinate with Mission Plaza improvements and be in character with the City of
San Luis Obispo.
7. A railing is required along the edge of the deck that is a minimum of 42 inches high
with a maximum opening dimension of 4 inches between pickets, and between the
bottom rail and grade. A detail shall be included on plans showing compliance with
this condition.
8. The applicant shall provide one additional parking space for the expanded deck area
as required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
9. The opening to the lower deck shall be the full width of the existing walkway to the
north.
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.
The decision of the Commission has been appealed to the City Council. The project is
tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on May 19, 1998. Please check
with the City Clerk's office to verify the date (805) 781-7102.
If you have questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at(805)781-7168.
Sincerely,
don�4
Development Review Manager
RW:mk
cc: Tim Woodle
GAMMARC158-974etter(a)
Draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-April 20, 1998
PRESENT: Commrs. James Aiken, Curtis Illingworth, Alice Loh, Lance Parker, Mark
Rawson, Ron Regier, and Chuck Stevenson
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, and Ron Whisenand, Development Review
Manager
PROJECTS:
1. ARC 58-97: 726 13ignera Street: Review of remodel of rear deck and patio; C-
CH zone;Brad Schwan,applicant
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
project,based on findings and with conditions.
Brad Schwan,73 Chorro Street,questioned why his project was within the purview of the
creek setback ordinance. He expressed frustration with the previous ARC decision,
including the added costs to the project He felt the deck is an enhancement to the plaza
area and the City. He asked the ARC to allow the deck as completed.
PUBLIC COMI ENTS
Commr. Aiken explained that Brad Schwan was taking a risk by proceeding with the
work without approvals. He complimented the applicant on the deck's workmanship.
Scott Bickering, downtown resident, appreciated the deck as an improvement to the area.
He felt the new deck provided a more usable space.
Leo May characterized the area before improvements as"a garbage dump".
Commr. Stevenson asked Todd Martin about how much fill material would be safe for
the tree. Todd Martin explained that compacted sand would be dangerous to the root
system by limiting oxygen and enhancing water retention at the root ball. He noted that
three to five inches would be safe for the roots; but that the ten to twelve inches being
added to the site would have caused damage.
ATTACHMENT. 6
�'-�23
Draft ARC Minutes
April 20, 1998
Page 2
Commr. Illingworth asked about planting at the base of the oak tree. Todd Martin said
that it was best not to include planting around the tree; he noted that the best solution was
to leave the well as developed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commr. Illingworth stated the new deck seems more on level with the existing walkway.
He felt the differences in the railing styles would distinguish the two areas. He disagreed
with removing portions of the decking to accommodate approved plans.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about how the public access to the area would be
retained. He was uncomfortable with the ARC being held hostage.
Commr. Parker felt fortunate to see the finished project. He liked the idea of
incorporating benches along the railing edges.
Commr. Loh felt the deck as installed included beautifiil materials and quality work. She
sympathized with the applicant about having to now make changes, but was concerned
with setting a precedent. She felt the applicant should go back to the original plan as
recommended by staff.
Commr. Rawson said the goal of the deck is to enhance the area for use by the general
public. He didn't agree with the process to get to this point, but he didn't feel that the
applicant should be punished. He wanted to see the opening to the deck area increased.
He suggested incorporating wooden benches (fixed) in the lower area to make it look
more like the creek environment. He pointed out the differences in railing styles as
helpful in differentiating spaces-
Comm .
paces.Commr. Regier said that listening to the tapes of the previous meeting was a good idea.
He liked the deck(sort of an expensive model).
Commr. Aiken felt strongly that this should not be construed as a precedent for violating
the process.
Commr. Parker asked about modifying condition number six to limit the use of the rear
area to not allow tables.
Commr. Rawson moved to approve the project based on the following findings and
modified conditions:
Findings
Draft ARC Minutes
April 20, 1998
Page 3
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission
Plaza
2. The location and design of the deck will minimize impacts to scenic resources,water
quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement,with incorporation of the conditions recommended by staff.
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans,nor increase
the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site,specifically the massive wall at the top of
creek bank,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.
6. 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 several other properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining
areas in the creek setback.
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no purpose
would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by
the exception.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall update the approved building permit to reflect project changes.
2. The applicant shall design the lower deck area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during
construction to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. The applicant shall incorporate fixed benches into the design of the rear deck area that
encourages public use of the rear deck area Benches shall be similar in finish and
materials to other existing wooden benches in the Mission Plaza area. The applicant
3�s
Draft ARC Minutes
April 20, 1998
Page 4
5. The deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the
flood hazards (increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
6. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to
the following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner,
prior to placement of any tables and chairs.
b.. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c. The area shall be signed to indicate that the public may use the area. The sign
design shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director and shall
coordinate with Mission Plaza improvements and be in character with the City of
San Luis Obispo.
7. A railing is required along the edge of the deck that is a minimum of 42 inches high
with a maximum opening dimension of 4 inches between pickets, and between the
bottom rail and grade. A detail shall be included on plans showing compliance with
this condition.
8. The applicant shall provide one additional parking space for the expanded deck area
as required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
9. The opening to the lower deck shall be the full width of the existing walkway to the
north.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concerns with the applicability of the findings given that
coverage in the creek setback area was going from 70%to 100%.
Commr. Parker seconded the motion.
AYES: Rawson, Parker,Aiken,Regier,Illingworth
NOES: Loh, Stevenson
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
�
C�b
CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rreM 4 I
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PR. MEETING DATE: April 20, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER ARC 58-97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 726 Higuera Street
SUBJECT: Review of revised plans to remodel the rear deck and patio of Kona's Restaurant,
located on Higuera Street between Chorro and Broad Streets,including an exception to the City's
Creek Setback Ordinance.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project,based on findings and with conditions.
BACKGROUND:
After extensive discussion at the April 6, 1998 meeting,this item was continued to a date certain
to allow for its review by a full complement of the Commission. The report prepared for the last
meeting is attached which provides a full history and evaluation of the request
ATTACHMENT 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 5
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner fR MEETING DATE: April 6, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Managr/'
FILE NUMBER: ARC 58-97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 726 Higuera Street
SUBJECT: Review of revised plans to remodel the rear deck and patio of Kona's Restaurant,
located on Higuera Street between Chonro and Broad Streets, including an exception to the City's
Creek Setback Ordinance.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project,based on findings and with conditions.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
On July 7, 1997, the ARC a 5-0-2 vote granted final approval to plans to remodel the deck and
patio area of the existing restaurant. The ARC's approval included an exception to the creek
setback regulations with conditions requiring the rear patio to be retained in brick, creating a
larger open area around the oak tree, incorporating a bench in the rear patio, noting flood zone
and parking requirements, and restricting use of the rear area consistent with the City's
pedestrian easement. Discussion of the item focused on maintaining public use of the rear patio
area and protection of the large oak tree.
On February 17, 1998, a building permit was issued for the deck and patio, consistent with the
plans and conditions approved by the ARC. The upper portion of the deck immediately behind.
the restaurant has been completed. With site preparation work for the brick patio closer to the
creek,the City Arborist stopped work because of concerns with fill material being placed within
the rooting system of the large oak tree.
The Arborist advised the applicant that he would support decking, rather than the approved brick
surface in this area. Attempting to work with the changed conditions, Planning staff indicated
that it could accept revised plans which showed decking in the area to the extent that the brick
surface was originally approved by the ARC.
With the Arborist's support for the decking,the applicant indicated that he would like to return to
his originally proposed plans which showed the decking extending down to the edge of the wall
at the creek(old bridge abutment) and enclosing the oak tree with a small planter. Planning staff
advised the applicant that this change in plans would require the review and approval of the
ARC. The applicant then resubmitted plans for the ARC's reconsideration. Since resubmitting �p
ARC 58-97(Kona's deck c,�,dtio)
Page 2
plans, the applicant has continued work in the patio area, without proper building and planning
clearances,and has completed deck framing consistent with his preferred extent of the decking.
Data Summary
Address: 726 Higuera Street
Applicant/Representative: Brad Schwan
Zoning: Central Commercial with the Historic Preservation Zone overlay(C-C-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Class 2, Section 15302. of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Project Action Deadline: May 23, 1998
Site Description
The approximately 4,000 square-foot lot is developed with a historic commercial building and
rear patio. It is located in the heart of the City's Central Business District and backs up to
Mission Plaza. Surrounding buildings include ground floor retail with apartments and offices
above.
EVALUATION
As previously mentioned in the Situation portion of this report, staff can support the change to
decking to protect the oak tree in the rear patio area,but believes that it should be confined to the
same area that the ARC allowed the bricks to extend (see attached site plan). In staff's opinion,
the ARC originally required bricks in the rear patio area, and limited the extent of the patio area,
for three primary reasons:
• consistency with City plans and policies,specifically the creek setback ordinance;
• maintaining public use of the rear patio area; and
• protection of the large oak tree.
Staff feels that its position on the issue is not arbitrary and is based on meeting the above goals.
The following discussion on the creek setback from the original staff report is reiterated below to
reacquaint the Commission with the analysis of the issue. Staff s goal has been to find a
compromise solution that limited development at the rear of the site to be more consistent with
the creek setback ordinance.
Consistency with City Plans& Policies
Section 17.16.025 of the City's Zoning Regulations governs the extent of improvements within
defined creek setback areas. The adjacent portion of San Luis Creek has a 20-foot creek setback.
Using the wall as a definition of the top of creek bank, the 20-foot setback would extend back
almost to the existing deck area
,.7 9
ARC 58-97 (Kona's deck&,,dtio)
Page 3
The creek setback regulations allows decks, stairs and landings that are less than 30 inches in
height to be located with the creek setback area under the following circumstances:
1. they do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel;
2. they will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation;
3. they will not reduce any flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations;
4. they in total occupy not more than one-half of the setback area;and
5. they are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning Regulations.
The proposed project complies with all of the above criteria except Number 4, as the deck area
would occupy the entire rear portion of the site that is contained in the creek setback area.
Because the project is an expansion beyond the area currently covered in bricks, and the decking
a more substantial improvement than the bricks, staff viewed the project as being subject to the
creek setback regulations and needing an exception to the coverage restriction noted in Criterion
Number 4 above. The needed findings to approve a creek setback exception are included within
the attached portion of the Zoning Regulations and as part of the recommendation portion of this
report.
Staff would like to see the new decking contained within the area defined by the existing City
railing, rather than extending out to the edge of the wall as proposed. (Planning staff has
modified this position to support decking to the extent approved by the _ARC for the brick
patio). To further meet the intent of the creek setback regulations, staff also suggests that the
large oak tree at the rear of the site be contained within a more substantial planter, rather than
surrounded by decking. Staffs compromise recommendation is attached as Exhibit A (attached
to follow-up letter and marked up with ARC's approved extent of the brick patio). The amount
of decking shown in staff's proposal is about 70% of the total creek setback area and still would
require an exception. The same findings could be used to support either the applicant's proposal
or staffs recommendation.
Another policy document that directly relates to the proposed project is the Open Space Element
of the City's General Plan. The following excerpt discusses improvements in Mission Plaza:
Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line and the City Limit Line
1. Within the city limits the City shall, and outside the city limits the City shall encourage the
County and State to:
A. Preserve creeks and their corridors as open space, and maintain creek corridors in
essentially a natural state to protect the community's water quality, wildlife diversity,
and aesthetic value.
1. Exceptions to this are Mission Plaza and its expansion areas and Laguna Lake
Park which should be preserved as park land with some open space features (see
the Outdoor Recreation section, Program d). Expansion of these facilities should
not result in significant biological impacts and should allow for the maintenance of
�3d
ARC 58-97 (Kona's deck patio)
Page 4
existing habitat value as well as human enjoyment. New recreation facilities
(benches, trails, viewing stations) shall be located to preserve sensitive resources
while providing some public access. If impacts occur in these areas, habitat values
shall be replaced on-site or off-site(in-kind only)at a 2:1 ratio.
Staff feels that this policy provides further support for the recommended compromise design
illustrated in Exhibit A, as it more fully meets the intent of the zoning regulations requirements
for development in the creek setback and limits encroachment, while allowing for public use of
the rear deck area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the plans as submitted by the applicant with the decking extending down to the edge
of the wall at the creek(old bridge abutment) and enclosing the oak tree with a small planter.
If this alternative is approved,then findings for a creek setback exception would still need to
be made.
In addition, the condition for requiring one parking space would need to be added (see
Recommendation section). Staff determined that with the extent of the patio shown on
approved building permit plans, the parking would requirement was 0.45 space. However,
the difference in seating area as requested by the applicant (an additional 110 square feet of
seating area)would change the requirement to 0.78 space or 1 space.
Another concern with the applicant's proposed plan is that a public bench that was a
requirement of the ARC's previous approval of the project(See Condition 3)is not shown.
2. Continue review of the project to the meeting of Monday, April 20, 1998. The continuance
has been requested by the applicant to allow his contractor the opportunity to be present at
the meeting to explain the specifics of deck construction.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The memo from the Public Works Department is attached. A recommendation is included that
accessible ramps be included in the deck design wherever feasible.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the revised project, including approval of a creek setback exception,
based on the following findings,and subject to the following modified conditions:
Findin
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission Plaza
3-31
ARC 58-97 (Kona's deck" ratio)
Page 5
2. The location and design of the deck will minimize impacts to scenic resources,water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest, and movement,with
incorporationofthe conditions recommendedby staff.
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that
are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the top of creek
bank, 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.
6. 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 several other
properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining areas in the creek setback
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no purpose would
be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall update the approved building permit to reflect project changes. The
extent of the decking within the creek setback area shall be limited to the area originally
approved by the ARC as a brick patio(Attachment A).
2. The applicant shall design the lower deck area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during construction to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. The applicant shall incorporate a bench into the design of the rear deck area that encourages
public use of the rear deck area.
4. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A" and shall
show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year storm elevation(196')per City datum.
5. The deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the flood
hazards(increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
6. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to the
following:
ARC 58-97 (Kona's deck a ratio)
Page 6
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner, prior to
placement of any tables and chairs.
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c. The area shall not be signed to imply that only paying customers may use the area.
7. A railing is required along the edge of the deck that is a minimum of 42 inches high with a .
maximum opening dimension of 4 inches between pickets, and between the bottom rail and
grade. A detail shall be included on plans showing compliance with this condition.
As pointed out in the Alternative section of this report, approval of the applicant's
proposed plans would require the following condition to be added:
8. The applicant shall provide one additional parking space for the expanded deck area as
required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
In addition, the second sentence of Condition 1 would need to be modified. Also the
applicant's proposed plans do not show a bench consistent with Condition 3.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Attachment A:plan showing the extent of the brick patio approved by the ARC on 7-7-97
ARC approval letter& 7-7-97 ARC minutes
Memo from the Public Works Department dated 5-8-97
Creek Setback Regulations from the zoning regulations
Barck5s-97-2(Kona's aax)
3-33
QPM yob
�o
0 9a
VICINITY MAP � ARCMI 58-97 NORTH
728 Higuen Street
3✓
Ki iACHMENT A
FRAMING NOTE
1 I. ALL
-
��-
3. d.L PLII, LMt-
�cLL =m cK
Plan cSho�t ; ri�
'-' IEx+cn+ c-F SrO
pati 0 A%pproVied
A-TRI C
o-� on* 7- 97
„
line s _ I
��/10US i
a
1CMRY S �(jc Pc�Ip a a
6 ri C ppl.#'i p °
I
I -
I ! -
�P�CeFI LIP/6il
� l
I I
II i lilt I .�
3 � Ili I i l � illi 111 ..2
II
city or SAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
July 11, 1997
Brad Schwan
73 Cho rro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 58-97: 726 Higuera Street
Dear Mr. Schwan:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of July 7, 1997, granted final
approval, to your request to remodel the rear deck and patio of Kona's Restaurant based
on the follow findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which
allows exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within
Mission Plaza, especially when new improvements allow for enhanced
pedestrian access.
2. The location and design of the deck will minimi_ i e impacts.to scenic resources,
water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement, with incorporation of the conditions adopted by the
Architectural Review Commission, including preservation of the large oak tree at
the rear of the site by the maintenance of a large open area around it
3. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor
increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the
top of creek bank, 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.
I(S I The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ���
ARC 58-97
Page 2
6. 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 several other properties are similarly developed with
outdoor dining areas in the creek setback
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no
purpose would be served by such.a survey because no biological resources could
be affected by the exception.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall use a brick surface in the lower patio area within the creek
setback area to generally reflect staff's recommended compromise design
shown in Exhibit A as amended by the ARC at the meeting.
2. The applicant shall design the lower patio area to take into consideration the
trunk and rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected
during construction to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. The applicant shall incorporate a bench into the design of the rear patio area that
encourages public use of the area.
4. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A"
and shall show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year storm elevation
(196')per City datum.
5. The applicant shall provide additional parking spaces for the deck and patio area as
required for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy. Nit i nc-reaSP
a -Floor area - 1/04 (0.45SPac9S;); ,•, no fvrthe.r pke.
6. The patio and deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot
increase the flood hazards(increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
7. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to
the following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner,
prior to placement of any tables and chairs.
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
,337
ARC 58-97
Page 3
c. The area shall not be signed to imply that only paying customers may use the
area.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
days of the action. The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 1997. 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(805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
o d WhisenKdDevelopment ger
RW:mk
cc: Tim Woodle
MKWRC158-97-1etter2
j
EXHIBIT
f\ 5
Z
G
I
I� I _
i
' i i
0
a .
S 14
1
9
Q
I -39
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-July 7, 1997
PRESENT: . Commrs. James Aiken, Woody Combrink, Curtis Illingworth, Peggy Mandeville,
and Laura Joines-Novotny
ABSENT: Commrs.Linda Day and Ron Regier
OTHERS
PRESENT: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner and Ron Whisenand, Development Review
Manager
PROJECTS:
I. ARC 58-97: 726 Higuera Street: Review of remodel of rear deck and patio with
possible exception to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance; C-C-H zone; Brad Schwan,
applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval of. a
scaled down version of the applicant's proposal,based on findings and with conditions.
Tim Woodle, representative, introduced the downtown Kona's restaurant manager and Brad
Schwan, owner of Kona's. Woodle stated that he did not agree with the limitations
recommended by staff on the extent of the deck. He noted that the existing deck is failing and
that manmade structures already exist in the area where the new deck is proposed. He
emphasized that the additional two to three feet of decking beyond the existing guardrail is
important. He suggested that they could accept the recommendation with changes to conditions
one and two. He indicated that the ultimate goal was to create a nice environment for customers.
Brad Schwan stated that the uneveness of bricks makes placing tables in the area difficult. He
noted a preference for movable,rather than permanent planters.
Commission Comments:
Commr. Joines-Novotny liked the proposed material (ipe wood) and appreciated the applicant's
efforts to improve the area. She suggested leaving the area around the oak tree open.
Commr. Combrink liked staff's suggested compromise attached as Exhibit A. He supported
having two distinct surfaces in the rear area behind the restaurant. He appreciated the willingness
of the owner to allow the public to use the area.
Commr. Illingworth was concerned with granting an exception to the creek setback ordinance to
ARC Minutes
July 7, 1997
Page 2
the degree requested. He wanted to make sure that the rear area was accessible and that the
public would be comfortable using the area. He stated that he preferred the use of bricks in the
area closest to the creek.
Commr. Aiken agreed with Commr. Joines-Novotny's suggestion to leave the area around the
oak tree open. He preferred keeping the brick material in the rear patio to differentiate between
the public and private spaces.
Commr. Mandeville was concerned with maintaining public access. She liked the idea of having
two different railings: using the City prototype for the public area; and another design for the
private area. She supported the idea of a bench around the oak tree. She stated that she could
not support approval of a creek setback exception to the extent of the current request.
Tim Woodle offered a compromise to the ARC of leaving the wood deck in the area immediately
behind the restaurant, replacing the bricks in the creek setback area and providing a planter
around the oak tree.
Commr. Combrink moved to approve the project plans including an exception to the creek
setback regulations, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Open Space Element which allows
exceptions to limitations on improvements at creekside locations within Mission Plaza,
especially when new improvements allow for enhanced pedestrian access.
2. The location and design of the deck will minimise impacts to scenic resources, water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, with
incorporation of the conditions adopted by the Architectural Review Commission, including
preservation of the large oak tree at the rear of the site by the maintenance of a large open area
around it.
I The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that
are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies.
4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.
5. There are circumstances applying to the site, specifically the massive wall at the top of creek
bank, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would
3�y�
ARC Minutes
July 7, 1997
Page 3
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same .
zoning.
6. 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 several other
properties are similarly developed with outdoor dining areas in the creek setback.
7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
area of the project or downstream.
8. The need for a biological survey was waived based on the determination that no purpose would
be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall use a brick surface in the lower patio area within the creek setback area to
generally reflect staff's recommended compromise design shown in Exhibit A as amended by
the ARC at the meeting.
2. The applicant shall design the lower patio area to take into consideration the trunk and
rooting characteristics of the oak tree. The oak tree shall be protected during construction to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
.3. The applicant shall incorporate a bench into the design of the rear patio area that encourages
public use of the area.
4. Building plans must note that the new improvements are within flood zone "A" and shall
show the finished deck elevation and the 100-year storm elevation(196')per City datum.
5. The applicant shall provide additional parking spaces for the deck and patio area as required
for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
6. The patio and deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase
the flood hazards (increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
7. The placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to the
following:
a. An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner, prior
to placement of any tables and chairs.
ARC Minutes
July 7, 1997
Page 4
b. The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c. The area shall not be signed to imply that only paying customers may use the area.
Commr. Joines-Novotny seconded the motion.
AYES: Combrink, Joines-Novotny, Aiken,Mandeville, Illingworth
NOES: None
ABSENT: Day, Regier
The motion passed.
ARC 73-97: 1101 Monterey Street: Review of exterior remodel of service station
including fueling canopies, service building, and signage; C-R zone; Shell Oil Co.,
a licant.
Pam Ricci, Associate P er, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the project,
based on findings and with ditions.
Doug Massaro, representative, cl ' ed that three canopies would be remodeled. He requested
deletion of Condition # 3, and explain that the yellow accent band would be externally, rather
than interior illuminated.
Commission Comments:
Commr. Combrink said it was a "slick" looking design the downtown location. He liked the
tile roof on the canopies.
Commr. Joines-Novotny liked the idea of retaining the brick ven and would like to see the
roof of the canopies retained also. She stated that the amount o rice signage should be
reduced.
Commr. Aiken stated it was.a very attractive service station. He noted the app ' ant should be
sensitive to historic character of the downtown area.
Commr. Illingworth said people can see the file roofs of the station from the freeway. He
mentioned that the station looked attractive as it is now developed.
Commr. Mandeville stated she would like to see the red tile roofing maintained and reduce the
rVIOJEE CT RE VIIIET TV'
May 8, 1997
To: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
From: Mike Bertaccini,Engineering Assistant
Subject: 726 Higuera Street,Kona's Cafe& Deli,Deck expansion
CONDITIONS
1. Building plans must note the new improvements are within flood zone"A"and shall
show the finished deck elevation and 100-yr storm elevation(196')per City datum.
2. Deck design must consider the impact on the flood zone and cannot increase the flood .
hazards (increases to flood elevation/accumulation of debris).
3. Placement of dining tables within the City's easement will be allowed subject to the
following:
a) An encroachment permit will be required to be signed by the property owner,
prior to placement of any tables and chairs.
b) The placement of tables and chairs shall accommodate public access.
c) The area shall not be signed to imply that only paying customers 4 use the area.
COMIWENTS
A. We recommend the installation of handicap accessible ramps in place of steps wherever
feasible.
Film Higuera 726 pl.doc
-that,the-minor addition is a logical extension of the 1102 - Ex. A(7), (8), 1987; Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A
existing non-conforming structure; (part), 1987; Ord. 1009 - 1, 1984; Ord. 1006 -
(part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code r
-that no useful purpose would be realized by - 9202.5(C)) _
requiring the full yard;
-that no significant fire protection, emergency
access, privacy or security impacts are likely from kttp Barrier Height at
the addition; and Street Corners
No barriers over 31, high
-that it is impractical to obtain a 10-foot separation ,fr.. In this area
easement pursuant to subsection "i" above. 3i'
Properly Line
All such additions shall comply with applicable
provisions of Title 15, Building and Construction
Regulations, of this code (see also Chapter 17.14, -30�-
Non-conforming structures). Curb
e. Other Yard Building Height Exceptions. Upon Figure 8
approval of a use permit, the Director may allow
exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4,
and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such
exceptions may be granted in any of the following 17,16.025 Creek setbacks.
and similar circumstances:
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
L When the property that will be shaded by the
excepted development will not be developed or will 1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and
not be deprived. of reasonable solar exposure, natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for
considering its topography and zoning; wildlife habitation, rest, and movement.
ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, 2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded
involving an insignificant portion of total available habitat, especially where a continuous riparian
solar exposure; habitat corridor can be established.
iii. When the properties at issue are within an area 3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within
where use of solar energy is generally infeasible the creek corridor.
because of landform shading;
4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion
iv. When adequate recorded agreement running and flooding.
with the land exists to protect established solar
collectors and probable collector locations; 5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
v. When the property to be shaded is a street. B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback
requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in
f. Intersection Visibility. At the intersections not the Open Space Element and shown on that
controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal, no plant, element's Creek Map, and only to those creeks.
structure or other solid object over three feet high
which would obstruct visibility may be located C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek
within the area indicated in Figure 8. At controlled setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of
intersections, the City Engineer may determine bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a
visibility requirements for proper sight distance. creek alteration reflected in a plan approved by the
(Note: Yard requirements may also be modified by . City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern
variance, Chapter 17.60; planned development, of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the
Chapter 17.62; .specific plan, Chapter 17.52; or creek flow line. The Community Development
special consideration zone, Chapter 17.56.) (Ord. Director may determine the predominant pattern of
28 —��
riparian vegetation, where the edge of the 2. Creeks in,Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any
vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1,
creek, in a way unrelated to topography (for 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided,
example, the Director will not base the setback line unless a specific plan or development plan approved
on individual trees or branches extending out from by the City Council provides a larger or smaller
the channel or on small gaps in vegetation setback, consistent with the purpose of these
extending toward the channel). Where riparian regulations and with General Plan policies.
vegetation extends over a public street, no creek
setback is required on property which is on the side a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the
of the street away from the creek. following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek
(all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East
Fork, from San Luis Obispo Creek (main branch) to
the confluence with Acacia Creek; Stenner Creek. .
b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the
,44.'W;�;,; ,,�,, �.,.� , . , following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom
Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek
ylcr
��� •-t-�`��:��=- _ East Fork tributary, from the confluence with
O`.�'• "'�-t3 w qg: TW of ...
•�-�--*�_ ;�'�•- �� �= Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227);
Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad
, ��-� ,:_, Street (Highway 227); the segment of the tributary
of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to
and on the easterly side of Broad Street (Highway
227), from Broad Street to Fuller Road.
c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all
creeks except those listed in parts Aa@ and Ab@
immediately above shall be 20 feet.
D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank
and of riparian vegetation shall be shown on all (Informational map is available in the Community
project plans subject to City approval. The location Development Department.)
of these features is subject to confirmation by the
Community Development Director, based on 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially
observation of actual conditions and, as needed, significant environmental impacts in compliance
the conclusions ' of persons with expertise in with the California Environmental Quality Act, or to
hydrology, biology, or geology. implement adopted City plans, when approving a
discretionary application the City may require
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback setbacks larger than required by parts 1 and 2
dimensions are established . in recognition of above, or further limitations on the items which
different parcel sizes and locations of existing may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City
structures for areas within the city in comparison regulations may restrict or prevent development in a
with areas which may be annexed, and in response floodway or floodplain.)
to different sizes of creek channels and tributary
drainage areas. 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly
approved a creek setback smaller than required by
1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all this section, prior to adoption of this section, by
creeks within the city limits as of July 1, 1996, the action on a tract or parcel map (whether or not a
setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in vesting map), architectural review application, .use
parts E.3, E.4 or G below. Where the city limit permit, Planned Development zoning, or Special
follows a creek, the setback on the side within the Considerations zoning, that smaller setback shall
1996 city limits shall be 20 feet and the setback on remain in effect so long as the approval is in effect.
the annexed side shall be as provided in part 2
below.
id L
29
F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following e. Garden structures such as .trellises, arbors, and
shall not be placed or constructed within a creek gazebos, provided they are constructed using an
setback, except as provided in part G below: open lattice design and light weight materials
structures; paving; parking lots; in nonresidential
zones, areas used for storing or working on 3.. Entitled Architectural Features. The following
vehicles, equipment, or materials. architectural features may extend into the setback
up to 30 inches: cornices, canopies, eaves,
G. Exceptions To Creek Setbacks. buttresses, chimneys, solar collectors, shading
louvers, water heater enclosures, and bay or other
1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a projecting windows that do not include usable floor
structure lawfully existed on or before October 3, space.
1996, within a creek setback required by this
chapter: 4. Discretionary Exceptions.
a. Any structure built in replacement of such a a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback
structure may occupy the same footprint, within the standards are intended to allow reasonable use of
creek setback, as the previous structure. (See also sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where
part 17.16.020.E.1.d.) there is no practicable alternative to the exception.
Generally, such exceptions are limited to small
b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the parcels which are essentially surrounded by sites
encroaching part of the structure (for example, by that have been developed with setbacks smaller
adding stories). than those in part E above.
c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than
due solely to the creek setback encroachment may required by part E above may be approved by City
be remodeled without regard to the limits of parts action on a plan for public facilities approved by the
17.14.020.6 and C of this title. City Council or on a specific plan, development plan
under planned development zoning, land division,
2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. The use permit, or architectural review. Where one of
following items may be located within the required these types of applications is not otherwise required
creek setback, provided that they: do not extend for the proposed feature, an exception request shall
beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will be in the form of an administrative use permit.
not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation;
will not reduce any flooding capacity pursuant to c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project
the City's Rood Damage Prevention Regulations; in involving a creek setback exception, regardless of
total occupy not more than one-half of the setback application type, shall include a clear description of
area; are consistent with other property the feature or features proposed to receive the
development standards of the Zoning Regulations. exception, and the extent of the exception.
a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be
with buildings they enclose not more than one-half subject to each of the following findings, regardless
of the setback area on any development site. of the type of project application under which the
request is considered.
b. Parking spaces for single-family dwellings;
patios; walkways. i. The location and design of the feature receiving
the exception will minimize impacts to scenic
c. Decks, stairs, and landings which are no more resources, water quality, and riparian habitat,
than 30 inches in height. including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest,
d. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and and movement;
storage sheds, play houses, and similar uses,
provided the projected roof area does not exceed ii. The exception will not limit the City's design
120 square feet. options for providing flood control measures that
are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies;
30 ��
Ri. The exception will not prevent the not be included in the determination of coverage.
implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase Portions of such structures which are more than 30
the adverse environmental effects of implementing inches from the ground shall be included in the
such plans. determination of coverage only if they are more
than 30 inches from a building wall; otherwise they
iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, shall not be included. (See Figures 5 and 6.) (Ord.
such as size, shape or topography, which do not 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982:
apply.generally to land in the vicinity with the same prior code - 9202.5(D))
zoning, that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
with the same zoning;
v. The exception will not constitute a grant of ACCESSORY BLDG.
special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity AREA UNDER PATIO ROOF AND
with the same zoning. OVER 30'FROM WALL
DECK OVER 30" HIGH-) /J
vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the DECK LESS THAN
public welfare or injurious to other property in the. 30
area of the project or downstream. 36"E%cLUSION
w� 4rt
e. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a j F—EDGE OF ROOF
qualified, independent person shall be required for I I ------
each discretionary exception request, to provide the
basis for making finding 'dX above, unless waived
by the Community Development Director upon uI,
determining that no purpose would be served by
such a survey because no biological resources
could be affected by the exception.
\—AREA UNDER ROOF AND
f. Application Contents. In addition to any other OVER 30" FROM WALL
information required for a project application, a -
request for creek setback exception shall include
the following: Figure 5
i. A description of the feature or features proposed
for exception and the extent of the exception.
ii. A description of potential design changes for the
project which would eliminate or reduce the need
for the exception.
iii. A statement of reasons why an exception is
deemed necessary by the applicant.
iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects .
of the exception.
17.16.030 Coverage.
A. Definition. "Coverage' means the area of a lot
covered by structures, including accessory
structures, expressed as a percentage of the total
lot area. Any part of a deck, balcony, or eave
which is less than 30 inches from the ground shall
f� p .
31 -/ 7b