HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2001, PH 2 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR A NEW OFFICE ' MmuoµDv
council. - 11 - o 1
jaqencm nEpoRt H 2
C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directora %diJ M
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
(ARC) ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR A NEW OFFICE
BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET AT 956 WALNUT STREET
(ARC 168-00, David Scarry, Applicant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the action of the ARC and deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 956 Walnut Street
Applicant: David Scarry
Appellant: John Atiya
f• r �_
Zoning: Office (0)
General Plan: Office A*!' �• `*`'
T '
' w ,
Environmental status: Exempt
. f ,
SituationAL
On June 4, 2001, on a vote of 4 to 3 (Commissioners Novak, Lopes, and Schultz voting no), the
Architectural Review Commission granted final approval with conditions to the design for a new
5,000-square-foot office building with a maximum height of 35 feet. On June 15, 2001, the City
received an appeal objecting to the building height. On June 15, 2001, the Administrative
Hearing Officer approved a use permit for the office building, subject to resolution of the
architectural design. The person appealing the ARC's action has also submitted an appeal of the
Hearing Officer's action, which is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on July
25`h. In both cases,the primary issue is building height.
The zoning regulations allow a buildings to be 25 feet tall in the Office zone, and up to 35 feet
tall with approval of an administrative use permit. The zoning regulations also allow the ARC to
act on certain site development exceptions when a project requires architectural review in
addition to a use permit. In this case, the ARC approved a 35-foot tall building design. The City
Council acts on appeals of ARC decisions.
Z, 1
Council Agenda Report—956 Walnut
Appeal of ARC action on 168-00
Page.2
Site description
The 11,381 square foot lot lies between Highway 101 and Walnut Street. It slopes gradually from
the eastern front corner to the western rear corner. There is a locust tree near the front of the site
which is proposed to be removed. The site is developed with a contractor's yard. On the adjacent
uphill property is a four-unit, two-story apartment building. The adjacent downhill property at
878 Walnut is developed with a dentist office and three residential units. Plans for redeveloping
this adjacent site have been approved by the ARC. (Attachment 3) Across the street are the
Economy Motel,apartments and houses.
Proiect Description
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure on site and replace it with a new
5,000-square-foot office building. The existing structure, which is used as an office for the
contractor's yard, is not historic and is believed to have been constructed in the 1950's. The new
building would have two floors of office space and would be 35 feet tall so that some of the
required parking can be located beneath and behind the building. (See reduced plans in
Attachment 3.)
Building Height
If approved to be 35 feet tall, this would be the tallest building on Walnut Street between Santa
Rosa and Chon o Streets. The apparent building height will be offset somewhat by the fact that
the site is on the downhill side of the street and that this area of Walnut Street itself is downhill
from surrounding properties to the east and south. The adjacent building to the northeast is two-
story. From the southwest, looking uphill, the building will appear at its tallest, especially since
existing and ARC-approved redevelopment on the adjacent site to the southwest are single-story.
Section B on sheet A-2 of the plans provides a partial cross section through the project site and
the adjacent properties.
The zoning regulations require that any approval of new commercial construction in the Office
zone be based on certain findings. One of the required findings for approval that directly relates
to building height is:
The location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly
affect privacy in nearby residential areas.
Visual Analysis
The applicant has submitted four "before and after" views of the proposed project. Included in
the package are a site plan indicating the locations from which photos were taken and a"context
board" with examples of other development in the vicinity of the project site. Photocopies of the
before and after images are attached. Full-size color copies will be available at the meeting.
(Attachment 4)
2_2
Council Agenda Report-956 Walnut
Appeal of ARC action on 168-00
Page 3
The visual analysis helps show to what extent the proposed building will dominate this stretch of
Walnut Street until a substantial number of other properties in the vicinity redevelop. The
"Context Board" submittal of photographs of nearby development provides examples
architecture in the vicinity. While some of the existing buildings shown are larger in terms of
square-footage, none of them are as tall as the proposed building would be.
Annellant's Position
The City has received a letter from Rob Strong, representing Mr. John Atiya, who owns the
Economy Motel at 852 Morro Street, across Walnut Street from the project site. Mr. Atiya is
objecting to the requested building height. He is concerned with the proposed building height's
impact on views, privacy and property value. He would prefer that no exception be granted to
allow a 35-foot tall building where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum height.
The Economy Motel property is just over a half acre in size. It has views of both Bishop's Peak
and Cerro San Luis. The new office building project would block some — but not all — of the
views to Bishop's Peak. Views of Cerro San Luis would not be affected by this project. Mr.
Attiya's property is zoned R-4 which allows for a 35-foot maximum height.
The letter from Mr. Strong argues that certain Land Use Element policies do not support a height
exception. Neither of the policies cited provide strong support for the appeal. Policy 4.16.4
applies to properties inside the downtown core. This property is at the periphery of the downtown
planning area (see map in Attachment 2). While policy 4.18 does apply to buildings outside the
core, it allows for building heights up to 35 feet.
Land Use Element policies that would better support the appeal are policy 4.13, which states that
new downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring
them, and policy 2.2.4, which states that in designing development at the boundary between
residential and non-residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.
Summary of ARC Action
The ARC considered two previous letters submitted on behalf of Mr. Atiya (see Attachments
8&9), as well as the testimony of several members of the public, the staff report, and the visual
analysis presented by the applicant's representative. Overall, the commissioners liked the project
architecture but were split on the issue of building height. Draft minutes from the May 21 and
June 4 meetings are attached which indicate some of the concerns with the project (Attachment
6). The action taken by the ARC is outlined in the attached letter to the applicant dated June 8,
2001 (Attachment 5).
� -3
j
Council Agenda Report—956 Walnut
Appeal of ARC action on 168-00
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review. Continuing the item would give the Council the benefit of the Planning
Commission's input since the administrative use permit is also being appealed. On the other
hand, taking an action should eliminate the need for Planning Commission review since the issue
of building height is the same in both cases.
2. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and denying the ARC approval of the
project design. This will force the applicant to redesign his project to meet the 25-foot height
limit and re-apply for architectural review of a new project.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Map of downtown planning area
3. Reduced project plans
4. Photocopies of the visual study
5. Letter outlining ARC action dated June 8, 2001
6. Draft minutes of the May 21 and June 4 ARC meetings
7. Appeal statement
8. Letter from Rob Strong dated May 16, 2001
9. Letter from Keith Owens dated May 16,2001
10. Draft resolution upholding the appeal
11. Draft resolution denying the appeal
A full-size color copy of the visual analysis and sets of full-sized ARC plans are available in the
Council reading file and a t the Community Development Department.
\ r.• `
PF
Z' n, ATTACHMENT44
1 "<
x � • k.K ,
10
R �L
u
Ny
i
`R� '.,
R4
f� 5
J; PF—
°{"kms.:. : 2• r5.\*� � �. � ,� ., N'
: 2
Vicinity Map 956 Walnut
N ARC 168=00
A0 100 200 300 Feet
I''
A7TRCFI
f ,\
aaaow a�
1 � i
iAN>�
- n®I !
rr
fi r 4 U I U
M -
I y 4 • - j �� � w,r p
8f
3
8 O ,
J re
� •ainrt Sao — � — — �— — —
I
I
i
a _
[ n
NELL _
y R Z b Y Y F S Y i I M
> fi
4 O.
_D p s .ter-- •�1�,I STEVEN U. $1EWART
SITE PLAN OPPIGC WLDINS Por 1 +� AitcHnES
IST PLQOK PLAN +✓ snm.•r wemciw,p lig �.
w tubi aaso.H '1••li l��I ..r.
-ATOOTM-ERr3
ae
I
I ss
D
r
R
(% n {
z z z �I
rn I{ = D
IIS II
I
I
o II
,
= I
II
I
a
E- I
YD
o U ^ I
6 d I
a — —
a
U1 z
'A
r r
O s 9
y
A D
z & z
D
uo
gT
UQ P
Drn 4 1 > §
mm m
i>
D
> ^' I
rn
ILI
IE
s o
a s _
• � Y4
r ` ".... slit smnoks o"lca auLPN& ror 11;�Ii�j I sTEvEN R. STEWART
.�w . �.... � z-g .
Jr
t up—
• uY•1�' it%f �.G
•�} If l tib:
R4
1 11 11K
I'
,
s
J✓` firZiz
'�T �� I ' f 7
�J .Kn-'.��};i.ii�-�� r bK��uM1te••� I
NM
0
ATTACHMENT 3
I � I
\
Z
a1
J
as
v
as a \ell
a —
Y
fit : s
air : ^
r
swsiNe ow.iti orriceaaLoiwe• o. I 'II���I SitvEN D. S1EwMT
.� A�artr[trs /
AITACHMEryT 3
x �
G �
Z
4 (�
° i" - iil� �---11�• 1 ��� 4�a
1• 1 Ili I.—_ �_.
TI I
.. ;
I !(i5 s fi CF FBF � i e f a o o° Li • F
t. is.
Y. t d!F •� >)i :eS • 4`_ i....p as r.: °nn> •i.n>
niNR 1�JSO iR-Fi; p�t)A y
inFt�ns<, ]>[•2 £>vOl> Slii i
T11 , � I �� r i >'. i � i; i : , 3,$f:��a' LGito •L<=�; R:;, Ia
O o"• :4 q f o ysldg§, 1 3,-a; �c;>•$ zp°S;
a din=> i = MV
x> Moo
4i1.
AL.-
O0 .-.-moi i'.-a >�.s r • x
_ - \•� 11 1 q i" a Y <c" s • L9=ate a� Ate• Fyt�0 a
(_' I • . ..s'.ai � +4 t {r f Y > j> yodii i^ i�i ia1
1 i- -.:.'-r'-"I ' �1--'n 's i; �� t : t _�
La
D tl�� � y ai d0 ; i ue=e+=n• =.ono p:�•a do :
v w >i • >{.•.n.e nns> n04>p >t 2
a�neo >='aa
n
n °s d° • rs of -in. n a e' . i nli t +;,�
{JI {rE { r�t n {s �a n ys • La jO > P<=} �> t
Q ; 3
F
a < >
rw Y4 °i g i = > a
i =
<r,llf[h > 8
r •
h{
'j STEVEN P.GAMINITI r.o.tLtr-
�r:>a GE BLDG.FOR DAVID SGARRY
r 7 •1 ^'�"�"�""�"'rec*"'n°rcrrt'u' WALNUT STREET
PLANTING F
0 ow:=...o.a.as o°lero cw<s.o•
� oasis.«o.=.rwxs .=•..s ...N LUIS OBt5P0,GA.934O1
rII !
k —
q� v
_ dl In
7 nr..d„ rt. Y _
4
i
♦ rl d r t
v V
r
� 1 �
!!:Vii:�•r�ei wr ._._ ,
9b� ' �✓;•� l I �•
r 1
1
1
-mac (
rt ail;cyr .� AQ
I c Hirt
IDMI
7, VII
tn
r.
l I l
1 t yp� f
STw i 1
�-• is /
.y t ;•.
>I
r
t 4•.hH. �,. .1 I
1 N ;
zr
.It
,
♦ .
J '
2�qy 7
Al
fit
F � .
ary¢L I' •1 i
r
I .
J ,
���` ti-�• \ �� � � . ,mss `.. � :
ZA�R '
7�� l
f
Y Y ![
a�
\
_
ti
i✓ T rr�r4
v>~
l.
f
y
i r Y y
y (� 0 - •{
` 3
} � t
I 1 '
.11,A,
i
IL
t
t/
+a
s !
v
t sT iP,Cf' �
Ir.
¢,;ter y�` 1 � I 1 ' •,�.
�a✓ p � 1 _
.1'
fx
,
yy,
J rte.
.f
1 ; 1
r
y yw
pl , , ,y•
IN
r
r
it ,tr � ` IIt �'• '
1 {.r
ii 1 ' I
�•,`ate
i >t;
., t �� .i
- -� ;
i � ,.�,'
� � .� �� L f ��� ��
1 .! � / �. �
. v
' � � e1
f � T J
� 1 -. � an�,) N
' x `� '{ffT//�.yyyy�a^^
� r{� Y H Y�
(( l�l t f -..V/
.A � 11 f� I1y �Y.rW '�. � .
A'1 _ J
.,a..i .v .r '..r
i � •y
ar , 1 ��i
1 fS�YI 1 �' �.1�~ C ��r I'l
Ilya. /t'S„ �ro:YJ}J Fr 1 ;-�.
� `f : . � y.
� // -0
-� fl�.: ,, �sq J�.
3 �� : r : +
.Y
,� • r rt
3�'P) �`�rft. �'.'
�c � �
� r �. �! i1
,.�,..,...� it""`
dl,
.w'.
,:
�.1.
g 5 •. i I
. ,+,
:.�.-_.
4 .. .:.Y::..- l
t �i�'
,,. j .., �`,.
�!�' .IIS. i�I
:,O
:'
a:`s�..
-�r, ..
•� .•�I '•:. �'
J1.—
R� ,:v: �
� ��1... ,
q F,
�.', att'; .r
f1'�l 3 . .
,,c�: .,r�.:>
�` 4�,r.a
'j.. ��
y`�S.' ;
!_ p. � �'
- I 1
ATTACHMENT 5
��II�III Illfll I I����,II�IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII� ILII
cityO Sal'1 tuts oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
June 12, 2001
David Scarry
1130 Grove Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 168-00: 956 Walnut Street
Review of a demolition of an existing structure and construction of a
5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a 35-foot
high building where a 25400t high building is allowed; and reduced
street yard from 15 feet to 11 feet
Dear Mr. Scarry:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 4, 2001, granted final
approval to your project, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Findings
1. As conditioned, the project design is appropriate in the Office zone and will be
compatible with surrounding development.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Section 15332 (Infill
Development).
3. A maximum height of 35 feet is reasonably necessary to accommodate adequate
on-site parking and allow the building to be located toward the front of the lot, rather
than having a parking lot up front with a building at the rear of the lot. The added
height is also Consistent with General Plan goals for infill development and compact
urban form.
4. A minimum street yard setback of 11 feet where 15 feet would otherwise be
required is appropriate for the entry feature only as a means of clarifying the entry
point and adding visual interest to the street elevation.
5. An exception to the City standards for parking lot planter dimensions will be offset
by conditions of approval requiring strategically located screen walls and additional
landscaping to screen views of parked vehicles consistent with the intent of the
Parking and Driveway Standards.
/ftO, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
vy Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. R—aD
ARC 168-00 �'
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 2 ---
6. As proposed and conditioned, the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new
structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas.
7. As proposed and conditioned, the project includes landscaping and yards that-fdee
-aQ4 adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in the
nearby residential areas.
8. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not diminish the quality of views
toward the site from Highway 101.
Conditions
1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the following to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director:
a. Include some wrought iron or other open style balustrade in the exterior stairs
to reduce their mass and better tie into other decorative details on the building.
b. Explore providing a foundation beneath the front portion of the stair that wraps
around the elevator since landscaping underneath the stair in this area will be
difficult to establish and maintain.
c. Provide a tiled wainscotting or another means of articulating the base of the
building.
d. Provide a means of better articulating the recessed panels on the elevator
tower if these areas are not used for public art, such as the work or spandrel
glass.
e. Use a slightly darker building color and/or provide a trim color for the window
sills and arched recesses around the windows and doors.
f. Use a smooth plaster finish.
g. Consider including some decorative medallions or ceramic tiles on the building
facades.
h. Provide some additional tile-capped posts in the deck railing at the rear of the
building.
i. Enlarge the front planter at the base of the building between the pedestrian
entry and the parking entry. Consider extending it out further from the building,
using a less rectangular configuration, and/or incorporating a wall fountain or
some other decorative backdrop.
j. The stamped concrete walkways should be colored to match the the elements
elsewhere in the project (e.g. roof, deck areas).
a�l
ARC 168-00 ,�
Page 3 ATTACHMENT 5
k. Alter the parking lot layout to increase the width of perimeter planters, or .
submit a revised plan that includes screen walls and trellising to better screen
the parking area, especially along the southwesterly property line.
I. Include more and taller shrubs and small trees in the front planter at the
eastern corner of the site to better screen the view of cars from the sidewalk.
m. Replace the Jacaranda proposed in the large parking lot planter with one or
two large evergreen trees or some choice of trees that will soften the view of
the building from the freeway.
n. Surround the low wall at the edge of the front seating area with a grove
planting of Melaleucas and an under story of shrubs such as Pittosporum tobira
variegata.
o. Locate the street trees as close to the sidewalk as possible to provide a canopy
for pedestrians.
2. The applicant shall obtain use permit approval for construction of a new office
building in the Office zone.
3. Construction drawings submitted with building permit application shall include noise
mitigation consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Workbook.
4. Demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need for a recycling plan for
disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majority of
the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled.
5. The Fire Department Connection shall be readily accessible, visible from the street
and the location coordinated with the Fire Department prior to installation.
6. An easement must be created for the new pipe directing site runoff to the existing
24" CMP.
7. Details of site lighting and bicycle parking shall be to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
8. The street yard setback shall be 15 feet except that the entry feature may have a
setback of no less than 11 feet.
Code Requirements
1. The new driveway ramp does not show the sidewalk wrapping around the ramp,
per ADA standards. The driveway ramp shall comply with City Standard No. 2110.
zr'?; �aa
ARC 168-00 ATTACHMENT 5
Page 4
2. There is a City sewer main on the adjacent westerly parcel. Although it is fairly
deep, the building plan must show it and the associated easement as it relates to ..
the proposed offsite storm drain. Appropriate details shall be provided, to the
satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and Public Works Department on the
building/grading plans. An offsite easement is needed to accommodate the storm
drain.
3. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer
Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be
abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse
and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the
owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe
to the Utilities Department for approval.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action.
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 Whitney Mcllvaine at (805) 781-7164.
Sincerely,
/Ronald Whisenand
Development Review Manager
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
a^a3
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 6
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
May 21, 2001 - 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Zeljka Howard, Hana Novak, Rob Schultz, Michael Boudreau,
Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
Absent: Commr. Mark Rawson
Staff: Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine
PROJECTS:
1. 956 Walnut Street. ARC 168-00; Review of a demolition of an existing structure
and construction of a 5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a
35-foot high building where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and reduced street
yard from 15 feet to 11 feet; O zone; David Scarry, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission continue this project with direction.
David Scant', project architect, gave a history of the project design.
John Knight, RRM Architects, discussed building height; visual analysis; zoning
regulations regarding building height; and criteria for findings to enable a 35-foot tall
building.
Steven Stewart, project architect, was open to staff recommendations except the
recommendation regarding the street yard setback and stepping back the upper floor.
The public hearing was opened.
John Attiya objected to the 35-foot building height.
Rob Strong recommended that visual study include a two-story option. He felt the
design should not have assumed approval of height exception. He mentioned regional
transportation plans for widening Highway 101. He is concerned this project will set a
bad precedent.
c�a�
Draft ARC Minutes'
May 21, 2001 ATTACF MM-1 6
Page 2
Kevin Owens, attorney for John Attiya, submitted another view from the freeway. He
said the project would change the character of the city as viewed from freeway, and is
too much building for the site.
Rob Strong submitted a petition opposing the project based on story poles erected on
project site.
Richard Root, 601 Hillside Court, Arroyo Grande, owns the adjacent 4-plex and
supports the proposed project, but is concerned with side yard screening. He has no
problem with the height of the building.
Joe Nichols owns property at 979 Walnut and is concerned with overall size and mass
of street elevation. Would prefer a two-story structure.
Jim Brock, 663 Osos Street, is concerned with loss of view and traffic. He is also
concerned with the availability of on-street parking and the view from the freeway.
Abigail Thom owns theroperty at the southeast corner of Morro and Peach. She
remembers the EconomyIM
sign. She likes the design of the Scarry project. She
suggested that the Economy Motel be declared historic since it is representative of
small motels during the war yea s.
John Freeman is a dentist and prospective tenant and supports the project.
Scott Stankey, who prepared the visual exhibits, has a background in architecture and
his objective was to be objective. He objects to the submittal of photo mockups
submitted by John Attiya's attorney.
John Knight said if you can't allow 35 feet between area with 35 feet height allowance
and freeway, where is 35 feet appropriate?
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Lopes asked John Knight about View 2, and Steven Stewart about the need for
exterior stairs. Steven Stewart said that exterior stairs reduce the parking requirement.
Rob Strong said two stories is also "compact urban form."
a-� s
Draft ARC Minutes'
May 21, 2001
Page 3 ATTACHMENT 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Schultz said there are lots of exceptions, which indicates the project is overly
ambitious. He mentioned that the site is within the downtown area although not within
the downtown core and cited General Plan Land Use Element 4.13, 4.16.4 and 4.18.
He said he might support height exception without all other exceptions.
Commr. Boudreau likes the building and the potential view, and also the use of vertical
design elements.
Commr. Lopes likes the architecture and stepping back third floor, but doesn't like the
dominance of the exterior stairs. He doesn't support a height exception. He objected
to a parking lot layout that crowds perimeter landscape planters. He agreed with
Commr. Schultz that the project can be redesigned to lower height.
Commr. Howard said she was of two minds since the development regulations did not
take into account grade differences in vicinity. Will set a precedent. Low density
development also has a price. No problem with other exceptions, but height exception
is clearly the biggest issue. She said that through some redesign the project could be
approved with a lesser height exception.
Commr. Novak was okay with the street yard exception, but had a problem with the
height exception. She referenced roles of ARC Commissioners in advisory body
handout. Concerned with potential of Hwy. 101 expansion and elimination of landscape
screening and was concerned with the impact on the Hwy. 101 corridor.
Commr. Stevenson was concerned with any notion of the ARC's role as policing
protection of private views. He was not concerned with height as view blocking and
likes that the building helps to screen parking. He was not objecting to height
exception, but he has some other design concerns and felt the doctored-up photos
presented by Kevin Owens were inappropriate.
Commr. Boudreau said there was more about this project that he liked than not.
Commr. Lopes would support a continuance and felt the ARC should look at impact of
height on ultimate Hwy. 101 corridor. He does not support a height exception.
Commr. Boudreau said that making stairs more transparent would help alleviate the
impact of building mass. Planting could help screen from freeway.
Several motions to either approve or deny the project deadlocked in 3-3 votes.
07—J6 6
Draft ARC Minutes
May 21, 2001 A7ACHMp�
Page 4 — 6
On motion by Commr. Schultz, seconded by Commr. Novak, the ARC continued this
item to the June 4th meeting.
AYES: Commrs. Novak, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson and Schultz
NOES: Commr. Howard
ABSENT: Commr. Rawson
2. 682 Palm treet. ARC 114-99; Review of revisions to approved plans (parking and
building el e tion); R-3-H zone; Mission College Preparatory, applicant. John
Shoals
Whitney Mcllvaine, Assoc ate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission grant final approval to the plan revisions with findings and conditions.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no comments from the puBlic.
The public hearing was closed.
Brian Starr, project architect, described the ch Apges to the original approved project.
He submitted noise information regarding the chi11 r/boiler equipment. The wall lights
will be removed. He explained the structural and fir rotection reasons for eliminating
the continuous clerestory windows.
On motion by Commr. Novak, seconded by Commr. How the ARC granted final
approval to the project. Modifications with direction regarding he smaller windows in
the west elevation.
AYES: Commrs. Novak, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson and Sc
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Rawson
Draft ARC Minutes _- ' _ ATTACHMENT 6
June 4, 2001
Page 3
4. 956 Walnut Street. ARC 168-00; Review of a demolition of an existing structure
and construction of a 5,000 square foot office building; height exception to allow a
35-foot high building where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and reduced street
yard from 15 feet to 11 feet; O zone; David Scarry, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission grant final approval with conditions.
Steven Stewart, the project architect, John Knight, the representing planner, and the
applicant, David Scarry, were present. John Knight stated the applicant's request for
project approval.
The public hearing was opened.
John Atiya, the property owner across Walnut Street, and Rob Strong, representative
for John Atiya were present. Mr. Strong and Mr. Atiya objected to the proposed building
height.
The public hearing closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Rawson supports the height exception given the context of site.
Commr. Boudreau would like to see a significant tree or trees planted in rear parking lot
planter to soften the view of the building from the highway. He supports the building
height.
Commr. Schultz doesn't support the height exception because it is contrary to LUE
policies 4.13, 4.164, 4.18. He feels the site could be developed successfully with a 2-
story building.
Commr. Howard supports the height exception and feels that good architecture doesn't
need to be hidden. She did not feel that the project would seriously affect privacy and
public views.
Commr. Novak does not support the height exception and does not support intrusion of
building views on Highway 101.
Commr. Lopes said that his job is to uphold General Plan policies and that the third
floor creates privacy issues. He also felt that the third floor windows exacerbate privacy
concerns.
CR-C;?I �
Draft ARC Minutes ATTACHMENT 6
June 4, 2001
Page 4
Commr. Stevenson liked the project architecture and focused Commission discussion
on staff-recommended conditions of approval.
On motion by Commr. Rawson, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC granted final
approval to the project with conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Boudreau, Stevenson and Howard
NOES: Commr. Novak, Lopes and Schultz
ABSENT: None
a a9
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2001
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as specified in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (attached), the undersigned hereby appeals the
decision of ATTACHMENT 7
Alr'�R Jmjvn' ReNxt 1 cony ks5 i. n
rendered on 1uvne- L4 ,,'zgp\ , which consisted of the
following (i.e., explain wht you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed.)
Bu�1�1 ` In la�� 2xcentlunu� 25
IK4 11 � l
�S� wtoxr��n fle»�n1�erJ w•l (n rea ch✓erl -�,�1 gnu g
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
1ulne--1,2-obl
Name/Departent (Date)
The appellant agrees to appear and/or send a representative to appear on his/her
%bhalf
lc.p r o y� ���� owv►e� of CSS 2
(Signa ure o Appe ant) Y o v S�re.e-, SLU,C-�
C s7vLSv� K )y G U r-U LA45\d2 O+1ve Aj5 CAQVo'%1*
Name/Title) Mailing Address and kip Code 93�7-Z
43RS I IO y 3831 SS
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: S C—P
A�«p
Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code
This item is hereby calendared for
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
City Clerk.(original)
(3101) a��
STRONG PLANNING SERVICES A.TA B STdr2ONG, A.I.C.P.
J 66
June 8, 2001 JUN 1Mayor Settle and City Council Members [-R-ECEi1V]ED
O CITY C
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City Hall, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Appeal of ARC A168-00, 956 Walnut Street
Dear Mayor and City Council:
On June 4, 2001 the ARC, by a 4-3 vote, approved a 35-foot height exception for a proposed
three-story office building at 956 Walnut Street, across the street from the property of my client,
Mr.John Atiya. The northeast side of Walnut Street, including the Atiya property at 652 Morro
Street, is zoned R-4, High Density Residential while the southwest side is zoned O, Office. The
latter adjoins freeway 101 and is visible from both north and southbound regional traffic.
The Office zone allows a maximum height of 25 feet. , unless an administrative use permit in
compliance with Section 17.22.010,Table 9, Footnote 11 is approved. It is this use permit, and
the required findings that we are appealing. In particular we believe that the proposed building
unnecessarily exceeds the two-story character of the established neighborhood and significantly
affects existing and potential privacy and enjoyment of the nearby residential areas.
The deciding vote came after a comment that the proposed building was"surrounded by three
story structures". The fact is that this will be the only three-story building within the three blocks
on Walnut between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets.
The General Plan Land Use Element policy LU4.16.4 states:
"New buildings should fit within thexie sting vertical scale. They should respect street-level
views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces and defer to a few tall,
`landmark'buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories.
Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight and street character, new buildings
should be limited to two stories,, or about 25 to 35 feet tall."
In policy 4.18, regarding commercial buildings outside the core,the paragraph concludes:
"However, buildings should not exceed two stores(about 35 feet in height)."
Relevant to existing and potential privacy and enjoyment of views from nearby residential areas
we presented the following facts:
The proposed three-story building adjoins a two-story 4 unit residential building to the northeast
which the north side windows of the third story as well as the second story will overlook. This
more than doubles the Interface of office windows adjoining residential.
;.. • . � .. . . . . X35=�3/SS
14500 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE,ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)442.9' 59-• FAX(805)438-3158 07-31
It is directly across the-street from the Atiya property known as the Economy Motel which are
currently single story residential units, that will be redeveloped in the future. The area is zoned
for high density residential.
Future townhomes,condominiums or apartments will probably be a mixture of two and three
story buildings with patios, balconies,windows and yards oriented toward the south and west
where sunlight and attractive views are currently enjoyed. But all the.front windows of the third
story office will look down on the southwest facing patios, balconies and windows that would
occur on the Atiya property, substantially interfering with residential privacy. Again this doubles
the interface problems.
To add insult to injury the 35-foot height at the front of the lot will block views of Bishop Peak
from potential visibility from the future residential units. The only way to recapture part of the
blocked view would be to propose maximum height on the upper portions of the Atiya property
interfering with the views from the adjoining residential areas on Osos and Peach Streets.
What makes this split decision most objectionable is that a three-story structure on the Scarry
property is unnecessary as well as inconsistent with City policy.
We demonstrated that the same ground level parking and a 5000 square foot office building on a
single elevated level could be constructed on this 11000 sq.ft. parcel, without height exception
which would make the building more consistent with its one and two story neighbors and more
compatible with adjoining residences to the north and est.
The ARC seemed to ignore the concern of the residential owner because the proposed office
building is an attractive architectural design. We believe that a similar design conforming to the
25 foot maximum height would be even more attractive and more compatible with adjoining
residential uses both existing and proposed. We ask the City Council to deny the Use Permit for
height exception because the project is an unnecessary intrusion on views and privacy of the
neighboring residential areas.
incere
Rob Strong, CP
cc: fax to Kevin Owen
John Atiya
FROM STS FAX N0. : 8054383155 May. 16 2001 03:01P1 P1
STRONG PLANNING SERVICES ROH STRONG. A.I.C.P.
May 16, 2001
Post-iC Fax Note 7671 Dams/l al0. Z
m
To Fro
Architectural Review Commission COA)wt.
`°SSr�h Pla�hi�
Uo Community Development Department Phone PhonE s pS IS S
Re: 95Fax n 3 Fax# 3 4
6 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo T 7 C
Office Project
Dear ARC commissioners: AngM .
8
The Walnut Street Associates project at 956 Walnut.Street involves an 11,381 sq:fL lot with
approximately 95'frontage on Walnut Street and lot depth'of 103'to'122'adjoining Freeway 101.
The site is zoned'o'for office and/or residential uses. The zoning ordinance requires
administrative use permit for construction of non-residential structures in the`O'zone. Building
height maximum is 25 feet unless up to 35 feet is approved by administrative use permit and
street yard minimum is 15 feet unless use I permit approves reduction to 10 feet minimum.
Section 17.22.010,Table 9, Note 11,states:
"In order to approve a use permit,the Director must make each of the following findings:
a. That the location, orientation, height and mass of the new structure will not
significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas;
b. That the project's location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to
use local streets in nearby residential areas; and,
c. That the project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and
pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas'.
The proposed site plan provides an 11't0 15'minimum street(front)yard, minimum 10'side
yards, and greater than minimum rear yard ranging from 34'to 48'(10'minimum).: The bulk of
the ground Ievel,except approximately 3,000 s.f. For landscape and ground level structural
elements is paved for 22 parking spaces, the minimum required for proposed office uses,which
occupy almost So00 sq.fL The building coverage(not catculated on tie plan) is estimated as
allowed try the 10'zone.ne-
approximately 2500 on two Floors, approximately 22%compared to the maximum 60% .
It is this inappropriate design, essentially a three-story structure containing 5000 Sq.ft. instead
of a single office level over parking that requires the exceptional building height of 35'rather
than 25'. Based on tat size and maximum coverage,a larger portion of the site could be
occupied by structure,.decks, balconies, porches and elevator. It is obvious that'a 5000 sq.ft.
gross floor area building on a single level would constitute 44%coverage still devoting the
ground level to parking.
The excessive three-story, 35'maximum building height is most objectionable to the residential
owners and occupants northeast of Walnut and Morro Street,east of the project. The
exceptional height
none
14500 MORAUNGsn]E DRIVE,ATASCADERO. CA.93422 •(805) 542-9150 • FAX(805) 438-3158
�-33
rROM STS FAX NO. : 8054383155 May. 16 2001 03:03PM P2
Ate`A-- 8
May 16, 2001
Architectural Review Commission
Page Two
would block potential views of Bishop Peak from existing and future residential units. The late
afternoon and sunset will be obstructed from nearby residents due to the height and mass of the
proposed new office structure.
And, contrary to required finding,the three-story offices with windows facing east toward the
yards and balconies of residential units will significantly affect privacy across the street and
overlooking adjoining apartments. The required findings cannot be made and the administrative
use permit should be denied.
Daytime office occupants of both raised floor levels of a 35'tafl building, particularly the 12 front
facing windows will overlook existing private residential yard areas across the street: The
primary orientation of future residential units would also be toward the south and west where
sunlight and views of landmark open space are currently enjoyed. Adjacent residential to the
north and east are generally at higher elevation,and their privacy would be affected if new office.
or residential development oriented toward this direction: only urban structures would be viewed.
Even more significant to the entire community, and clearly adverse to the attractive open vista of
the City from Freeway 101, is the unnecessary visual intrusion that this excessive 35 foot tall
structure proposes. By itself it would be the only three-story building along the east edge of the
freeway, but worse yet is the precedent it creates. If other future buildings along the west side
of Walnut Street also propose more than the current 25'maximum, the view from the freeway
will be the backs of many buildings,also obstructing views and intruding on residential privacy to
the east of Walnut Street.
In summary,the proposed three-story office building's excessive and unnecessary height and
mass significantly and adversely affect privacy in adjoining and nearby residential areas. The
parking design lacks adequate landscape screening and yards particularly to the northeast and
places 9 of the 22 cars only inches from the adjoining apartment. If a single 5000 sq.ft.office
level Over parking were proposed, It could comply with the 25'maximum height, without creating
the excessive"overlook'and view blockage adversely impacting nearby residential areas and
Freeway 101.
The ARC should deny the project as submitted and instead encourage a single level office over
ground level parking with more than minimum front and side yards and more spacious parking
lot design.
Sincere
Rob Strong
cc. R. Kevin Owens
John Atiya
2
a��
R KEVIN OWENS
ATTORNEY AT UW
1103 JOHNSON AVENUE,SUITE E 47T^Iv
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 �/�j�^M����1♦�� U
TEL:(805)541-8700 FAX: (805)541-8702 VVV
May 16, 2001
Architectural Review Commission
Attn: Ronald Whisnand, Development Review Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Objection to Application for Use Permit A 168-00
956 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Whisnand:
This office represents John H. Atiya, who is acting on behalf of John H. Atiya and The
AI-Haddad Sabah Trusts (hereinafter, for convenience, collectively referred to as "Atiya"), the
owners of the property located at 652 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo. The following is submitted
in opposition to the application for Use Permit A 168-00, concerning 956 Walnut Street, in the
City of San Luis Obispo (the "Scarry Project").
Background
Presently, there is a one-story residential structure situated on 956 Walnut Street. The
rear of the subject parcel, which is located in the O zone, abuts Highway 101. The Atiya
property at 652 Morro Street, a corner lot directly across Walnut Street from the subject parcel, is
currently used as a motel comprised of several detached, single-story structures. 652 Morro
Street is zoned R-4-
The surrounding neighborhood is comprised predominantly of single-story, residential-
type structures, some of which, particularly along Walnut Street, have been converted to
professional offices. There are also some two-story, multi-unit residential and commercial office
structures in the immediate area.
By this Application, the applicant, David Scarry, proposes to build a new office building
on the subject property, and seeks a permit to extend the maximum building height of the project
to 35 feet and to reduce the frontal setback from 15 to 11 feet. For the reasons set forth below,
Atiya opposes the granting of either the height or the setback variance.
Objections
l . Loss of Privacy. The height proposed for the Scarry Project is inappropriate for
the neighborhood. As noted above, most of the buildings in the surrounding neighborhood are
�3s
Architectural Review Commission �ATTACHMENT 9
May 16, 2001
Page Two
single-story, residential-type structures. A 35-foot commercial structure situated on the very
front of the subject parcel would overwhelm the neighborhood, destroying the privacy of
adjacent residents and adversely impacting the views and sunlight exposure of nearby parcels. As
presently designed, the Scarry Project is antithetical to the height, scale, mass, and general
character of the existing neighborhood.
2. Impact on Subsequent Development. Granting the Scarry Project a height
variance to 35 feet will have profound repercussions throughout the subject neighborhood. As
previously noted, the Atiya property is zoned R-4, which permits a height of 35 feet. Atiya
intends to build residential condominium units at 652 Morro Street, at some point in the not too
distant future. Granting the Scarry height variance request will necessitate constructing such
units at the full 35-foot height allowable in R-4, in order to partially offset the exceptional impact
of a 35-foot office building on the privacy of the condominium residents, and to attempt to
recover some of the Bishop's Peak view that would be lost by virtue of the Scarry variance. Such
a configuration will substantially change the neighborhood environment and engender an intense
buildup of 35-foot structures, in domino fashion, throughout the surrounding area. Thus, there
will be not one, but many 35-foot buildings across the street from each other along Walnut Street
and, eventually, throughout the entire neighborhood.
3. Negative Effect on Highway 101 Frontal Properties. The appearance of San Luis
Obispo when viewed from Highway 101 is a significant component of the desirability and value
of local properties. The height proposed for the Scarry Project would profoundly and negatively
impact the character of the City's appearance from the freeway. A useful frame of reference is
the structure located at 860 Walnut Street, presently occupied by Attorney Process Service. The
entire roof of that building is plainly visible from the freeway. By this application, Mr. Scarry
proposes to build a significantly taller structure on a parcel that is substantially u hill from 860
Walnut. An imposing- even garish - presence from the Highway 101 perspective will inevitably
result. Moreover, such an oversized project would also be a precedent for additional height
exceptions on the west side of Walnut, dramatically changing the character of the visage that is
presented to freeway viewers.
4. An Ill-Advised Accommodation of an Ill-Conceived Design. It should be noted
that a 5,000 square foot commercial building would be considerably larger than any other
structure in the subject neighborhood. A driveway width of 16 feet is barely adequate to handle
the traffic this project will attract, especially if the tenancy of the building evolves into
exclusively medical or dental practices, for which additional parking and traffic capacity is
required. If parking and compatibility with existing and potential residential uses are of concern,
as indeed they must be in this locale, a down-sizing of the project should be mandated, not a
further burdening of the neighborhood with a ruinous height allowance.
lI Intl
a_c3.6�
I
Architectural Review Commission A1TAC!}IA1 9
N1av 16, 2001
Page Three
Conclusion
Approval of the Scarry Project in its present design will effectively inaugurate a
thematically incompatible building trend and precipitate a profound change for the worse in the
immediate neighborhood, as well as the City's appearance from Highway 101. John H. Atiya
and The AI-Haddad Sabah Trusts urge that the Application for Use Permit A 168-00 be denied.
Very truly yours,
R. Kevin Owens
c77
Resolution No (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 10
Appeal Upheld: 956 Walnut(168-00)
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING APPROVAL OF A 35-FOOT TALL BUILDING
HEIGHT AT 956 WANUT STREET
(ARC 168-00)
WHEREAS, on May 21 and June 4, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
conducted public hearings and, based on the documentation and public testimony presented,
granted final approval with conditions to the design of a new office building at 956 Walnut Street
with a maximum height of 35 feet; and
WHEREAS, Rob Strong, filed an appeal of the ARC's action on behalf of Mr. John
Atiya,on June 15, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2001, and has
considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the ARC hearings and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the ARC's
recommendations, the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
1. A maximum building height of 25 feet is appropriate at 956 Walnut Street to
ensure protection of privacy and views in nearby residential areas.
2. A maximum building height of 25 feet at 956 Walnut Street is supported by Land
Use Element policy 4.13, which states that new downtown development should respect
views of the hills, flaming rather than obscuring them, and policy 2.2.4, which states that
in designing development at the boundary of between residential and non-residential uses,
protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.
SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
action to approve a 35-foot maximum building height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum
height allowed is hereby upheld, thereby denying the height exception.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Resolution No (2001 Series)
Appeal Upheld:956 Walnut(168-00) 4ATTACHMENT 10
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Z'o City Attorney Jeffrey� G. Joeqe-nn
a��9
Resolution No (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 1 i
Appeal Denied:956 Walnut(168-00)
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 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 APPROVAL OF A 35-FOOT TALL BUILDING
HEIGHT AT 956 WANUT STREET
(ARC 168-00)
WHEREAS, on May 21 and June 4, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
conducted public hearings and, based on the documentation and public testimony presented,
granted final approval with conditions to the design of a new office building at 956 Walnut Street
with a maximum height of 35 feet; and
WHEREAS, Rob Strong, filed an appeal of the ARC's action on behalf of Mr. John
Atiya, on June 15, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2001, and has
considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the ARC hearings and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the ARC's
recommendations, the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project design is appropriate in the Office zone and will be
compatible with surrounding development.
3. A maximum height of 35 feet is reasonably necessary to accommodate adequate
on-site parking and allow the building to be located toward the front of the lot, rather than
having a parking lot up front with a building at the rear of the lot. The added height is
also consistent with General Plan goals for infill development and compact urban form.
6. As proposed and conditioned, the location, orientation, height, and mass of the
new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas.
7. As proposed and conditioned, the project includes landscaping and yards that
adequately separate parking and pedestrian, circulation areas from sites in the nearby
residential areas.
8. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not diminish the quality of views
toward the site from Highway 101.
Resolution No (2001 Series) A7TACfENT j I
Appeal Denied: 956 Walnut(168-00)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
action to approve a 35-foot maximum building height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum
height allowed is hereby denied, thereby upholding the action taken by the Architectural Review
Commission on project number ARC 168-00 at 956 Walnut Street.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APP VED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney effrey G. Jorgehsen
'STING AGENDA
DATE ITEM#.
council mEmoRanaum
Ci of'SanaLuis
DATE: July 10, 2001
TO: Mayor&Members of the City uncil
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE.AR ITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR A NEW OFFICE
BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 36 FEET AT 956 WALNUT (ARC
168-00, DAVID SCARRY, APPLICANVJOHN ATIYA,
APPELLANT).
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing on the above item to Friday, August 3, 2001
at 1:00 p.m.
The above appeal was filed with the Office of the City Clerk in a timely fashion and, consistent with
the SLO Municipal Code, calendared for the July 17th Council meeting. Unfortunately and
inadvertently, staff did not meet the required 10-day legal notice to the applicant, appellant and
adjacent property owners, as well as the general public via a newspaper ad and the posting of signs.
The City Attorney has advised, therefore; thatthe item be continued to the next Council meeting to
allow for proper notice.
Given the fact that the next regular Council meeting is not until Tuesday,August 21 ` (five weeks from
now), staff recommends that the Council continue this matter until Friday,August 3`a at 1:00 p.m. In
order to avoid a significant delay on the project, the applicant and appellant have indicated that they
will be available and present on August 3Ta
This recommendation is, however, contingent on whether or not the Council agrees to meet at noon on
August 3 to receive a presentation by County staff of their plans relative to the new County
Administrative Offices building. Staff will be making this request under Communications during the
July l O5h Council meeting. If the Council elects not to meet on August P, staff would then request
that the above appeal be continued to August 2155
c: Wendy George, ACAO
Dept. Heads
co...M Ammo 7/10/01