HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2015 ARC Agenda Correspondence - Item 3 (Russom & Justesen)RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OCT 16 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October 15, 2015
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: West Creek Residential Subdivision
Second Conceptual ARC Review of West Creek Project - October 19, 2015
Dear Architectural Review Commission,
The applicant team has been diligently working with the City to submit a complete application
for the project's subdivision map which is titled Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 3083. The
VTM was initially submitted to the City at the end of July and an updated version submitted on
October 1, 2015. The current version of the VTM responds to the comments of various City
departments who reviewed the initial version of the map. The applicant team has met with all of
the City departments who made comments and is very close to having an application that is
certified complete.
The ARC conceptually reviewed the project initially on December 1, 2014 and provided a list of
directional items. In addition to the VTM, an updated architectural review packet was developed
to respond to the ARC's request to conduct a second conceptual review of project plans before
the VTM went before the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on traffic study
recommendations, both the VTM and architectural set of plans reflect further refinements to
the project's street circulation network, most notably the roundabout entry to the project off of
Orcutt Road and the street knuckle in the southeastern corner of the project. The original
"Responses to ARC Direction" prepared by the applicant and included as Attachment 2 to the
staff report was completed before the current version of plans. Therefore, some changes were
made to the page numbering of plans resulting in some of the references in Attachment 2 of the
staff report being inaccurate.
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
p: (805) 543 -1794 • f: (805) 543 -4609
www.rrmdesign.com
a California corporalion • Lenny Gronl, Archilect C26973 - Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 • Jeff Ferber, LA 2844
West Creek Residential Subdivision
Second Conceptual ARC Review of West Creek Project - October 19, 2015
October 15, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Please refer to Attachment I, which is an updated version of the original "Responses to ARC
Direction" which corrects references, updates grading comments, and responds to certain
portions of the staff report analysis. Please feel free to contact us at (805) 543 -1794, if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
andall Russom, AIA
Project Manager
CA License No. C24410
Erik Justes . AS LEED
CEO + Pi siden
CA License No. 2608
cc: Aaryn Abbott, RobbinsIReed
Attachment: I - Updated "Responses to ARC Direction"
;mavi�l 20 i l` 01 1J 50 -nwst Creels - Residential SuixJiwsicn�P'onning \VFA4 ;uhnuttafAR(: bm,ttwiA )w -Wesl Creek -10 9 tJ �'i AR(- CoverL�tte,
Admen dou,
in
Cn
�-
O
c
O
N
c E
—9
0
o
f
Q
a
LL
E o
1
0' .(n
Cn
0 a
�
o
�
VOC
a
9 0
0
2 0
33
N
r?
a0
QU
U�
Q
0
X c�
cu
0
0
F-❑
❑
❑
❑
❑Im tap O
;mavi�l 20 i l` 01 1J 50 -nwst Creels - Residential SuixJiwsicn�P'onning \VFA4 ;uhnuttafAR(: bm,ttwiA )w -Wesl Creek -10 9 tJ �'i AR(- CoverL�tte,
Admen dou,
ATTACHMENT "1"
Responses to ARC Direction (I 2/l/14 meeting)
The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second
conceptual review prior to the Planning Commission's review of the Vesting
Tentative Map (VTM).
Response: As requested, the project is returning to the ARC for a status update and focused
review prior to the VTM going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. A
streamlined package tailored to responses to the ARC's directional items has been prepared.
The focus of this meeting will be to discuss changes made to the project to respond to prior
ARC direction. The more detailed analysis and discussion of the project would occur with final
review after the VTM is approved.
2. Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading
details such as cut and fill quantities,retaining, and topographic maps.
Response: A full VTM package has been submitted to the City. Relevant information related
to the requested grading details is part of the streamlined ARC package. A link to the VTM
and associated documents will posted on the City's website for the Commission's reference if
desired.
Project site grading is complicated by about a 40 -foot drop in elevation between the level of
Orcutt Road and the elevation of the "A" Street Bridge and areas along the riparian corridor.
The main focus of project grading was to limit impacts to the riparian corridors by minimizing
creek area grading. The ultimate goal is to take a degraded corridor and make it a site amenity
and improve its biological health and habitat values. Since the original site and grading plans
were drafted, there have been numerous improvements to the overall grading proposal,
coordinated with direction from City Natural Resources and Public Works staff, to limit the
extent of needed earth movement and to limit the height and extent of retaining walls; these
include:
a. Site grading where cut and fill are essentially balanced, assuming 10 -15% shrinkage during
the compaction process. This is an obvious aesthetic benefit, consistent with City policies,
and limits disruption to adjacent properties from construction traffic by limiting the need
for import and export of materials.
b. Many retaining walls along the riparian corridor have been eliminated.
c. There are a few walls over 6 feet in height shown on Sheet C4 of plans. All of these walls
serve important purposes and are on the perimeter of the site along the Orcutt Road
frontage or to reinforce drainage facilities.
There are two walls along the Orcutt Road frontage of the site. The first wall is a
maximum of 6 feet in height. The second wall, which is not visible from street views, varies
in height and is a maximum of 10 feet tall. This series of walls was pursued because there is
a is a 30 -foot elevation change between Orcutt Road and the creek area and building
codes limit the flexibility of the Multi - Family site design due to drainage around structures,
ADA paths of travel, parking areas and the building footprints themselves. The strategy
was to minimize impacts to the creek corridor by accommodating much of the elevation
ATTACHMENT "1"
Responses to ARC Direction
Page 2
change closer to the street, rather than adding walls near the creek. As shown in Section
C on Sheet A2, there is the added benefit that massing from Orcutt Road is perceived as
being two - stories, rather than three. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan requires that buildings
with more with more than a single story are set back at least 50 feet from Orcutt to
maintain views. Creating a flat pad at this location allows for provision of needed parking in
the intervening area and has the benefit of it being screened from street views.
The other significant grade differential within the Multi - Family site will be a 10 -foot step
that is incorporated into car port structures. Also, there is a 6' step near the clubhouse
that also includes an ADA ramp down to the facility.
A wall adjacent to the roundabout is proposed to accommodate the I I -foot grade
differential between the existing roadway elevation and existing creek elevation and
minimizes impacts to the creek to the greatest extent practical. This wall also will not be
visible to the street. Similarly, another wall along the Orcutt widening at the Easterly creek
is proposed to accommodate the 13 -foot grade differential between the existing roadway
and existing creek elevation but will also reinforce an existing culvert structure that is in
disrepair and will again minimize impacts to the creek to the greatest extent practical. The
13 -foot wall that the concept was supported by Engineering, Natural Resources, and
Planning during our site walk as a beneficial improvement to the existing infrastructure.
One internal retaining wall with limited visibility is proposed over 6 feet in height. This wall
is located in the parking lot area between the two multi - family buildings in the
northwestern corner of the project near the roundabout. Details on how this will be
finished and screened will return with plans for final ARC review.
e. Plans show a tiered set of retaining walls, rather than one taller wall, in the southeastern
section of the site to provide a more gradual transition and aesthetically superior solution
to grading. There is 5 feet of spacing between the two walls that will allow for landscaping
to provide a softer appearance (see Section A on Sheet A2).
f. The R -2 lots along the creek have been lowered to creek elevation to the maximum
extent practical without utilizing walls along the creek corridor. There is a 40 -foot drop
from the rear yard of Lot 19 to the creek elevation along the rear yard of Lot 12. The
strategy to accommodate this grade drop in such small distances utilizes tiered walls, a 2-
foot drop in the garage, maximum City standard driveway slopes, directing drainage to the
rear of the creek lot, reducing the rear yard along the creek with possible raised decks
along the creek and grading & restoration along the creek. This concept was supported by
the City Natural Resources Group after careful consideration, site visits and discussions
about the site constraints. There is almost 60 -feet of drop in the East -West direction
within the R -2 lots and walls have been reduced greatly by designing the linear parks to
have 15 -feet of drop within each park area. This combined with the tiered walls, some
steps and graded parkways along street frontage allowed for maintaining the natural grades
to the maximum extent practical.
Please refer to VTM Sheets C8, C9 & C I I located on Pages ARC3 -88, ARC3-89 & ARC3-
91 of the staff report. A copy of minutes from a September 29, 2014 meeting with city staff
to discuss grading and creek setbacks is attached.
ATTACHMENT "1"
Responses to ARC Direction
Page 3
3. Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditional
single- family homes and multi - family units across the creek, and showing
pedestrian connections between the multi - family buildings.
Response: Sheet Al of plans shows pedestrian linkages across the site and to adjacent
properties. The goal of the design is to make the development pedestrian - friendly and connect
to adjacent sites. The project includes a pedestrian pathway on the south side of the creek,
beyond the single - family traditional lots, in the common open space area to link to A Street. This
path links to the pathway in the open space area between the parkway homes to the south and
allows for access to park areas and Orcutt Road beyond.
Grade changes and ADA requirements limit the applicant from including a bridge across the
creek to provide a direct link between the single - family areas and the R -4 component.
4. Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of
street and pedestrian linkages.
Response: Sheet A I of plans shows the location of the most likely street and pedestrian
linkages. Applicant has met with owners of adjacent mobile home park to discuss pedestrian
and utility access between sites.
S. Clarify parking proposals throughout the project.
Re_spone: Sheets A4 and A6 of plans is a parking plan which details for all of the project
components how parking consistent with City ordinance standards is provided. This plan
demonstrates that the single - family "parkway" lots (alley loaded) and single - family traditional lots
fully comply with City parking requirements. The parking for the multifamily portion of the
project is a little more complex calculation given the variety of unit sizes and target market.
Exhibit A provides a detailed discussion of the calculations and a rationale to support an
automobile trip reduction exception to parking standards at this location.
6. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-
street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk).
Response: This item would return to the ARC for final review. Sheet A6 of plans, the
parking plan, shows locations of on- street parking.
7. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of
structures and relationship to topography.
Response: A digital model of the project has not been prepared. If requested by the ARC,
perspective views of project components or expanded sections could be prepared for final
ARC review of the project design.
ATTACHMENT "1"
Responses to ARC Direction
Page 4
8. Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single - family products.
Response: Sheet A10 of plans includes a third elevation type for traditional lot single family
residences. The "Neo- Craftsman" style was selected to have a style specifically called out in the
OASP. The elevation has elements of the traditional style, but also has a contemporary edge to
coordinate with other project building styles.
9. Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing the street
with the traditional single - family products such as rear garages, side- loaded garages
and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to
accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem
parking may be supported to minimize the width of driveways.
Response: The R -2 component of the project has two distinct unit types, the traditional units
(23) and the parkway units (44). The traditional units have individual driveways with access to the
public street and street - facing garages. The parkway units have internal alley access to individual
garages and no direct access to the public street. The distribution of unit types, with the fewer
traditional units wrapping around the cluster of the parkway units, was intentionally done to
minimize the overall number of units with garages facing the street.
In accordance with the OASP, the R -2 project design attempts to maximize density while still
providing compact and livable homes on smaller lots. Without the internal alley access for the
parkway units, the design could potentially have had lots on the south and west sides of the public
street that also had garages along the street. Therefore, the proposed design with twice as many
R -2 units using alley access inherently minimizes garage doors facing the streets with 66% of the
units have no garages facing the street.
Other features of the project design for the traditional units that minimize the aesthetic impacts
of individual garages facing the street are:
a. Staggered setbacks — The garage doors have varied setbacks and are not all in alignment.
b. Garage door locations — The doors are stepped back from the main fa4ade allowing the
front porches be the prominent feature along the street view.
c. Detailing — Garage doors will include small divided upper windows for light and as accents,
and natural garage door recesses will be treated with lintels, trellises and surrounds.
d. Driveway paving — Pavers and non - traditional paving options are being considered.
Cannon
West Creek Project - +Creek Setback Meeting
September 29, 2014 3:00 — 4:00 pm — 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
Present: Bob Hill (City of SLO), Freddy Otte (City of SLO), Chuck Braff (R &R), Aaryn Abbott (R &R), Randy Russom
(FIRM), John Rogers (Cannon)
Topics: Establishing Creek Setbacks
• John discussed the delineation of the creek setbacks.
• The biologist from SWCA provided existing creek bank locations and the project initially used a 20'
creek bank setback as the constraints for the proposed site plan improvements and grading limits.
• After the field walk with the City, the biologist from SWCA provided existing wetland limits and the
30' wetland setback was compared to the 20' creek bank setback and site plan.
• It was suggested during the field walk that a predominant pattern for the setback delineation could
be created to simplify the creek undulations. The proposed predominant pattern for the setback
delineation was reviewed and accepted (see attached exhibit). Bob Hill suggested that the
methodology be summarized and submitted with the Vesting Tentative Map for the City's records.
Proposed Grading within Creek Setbacks
• John reviewed the elevation differences onsite and discussed proposed 2:1 grading slopes within
the creek setbacks (see attached exhibit) on the Single - Family side of the creek. It was noted that
no permanent structures are proposed within the setbacks.
• Bob and Freddy concurred with the temporary grading in the creek setbacks, given the current site
conditions and the creek re- vegetation that the project will implement. Also, they suggested
flattening out the proposed 2:1 grading slopes to be closer to 4:1 gradient, which will provide
improved plant establishment opportunities.
• Randy noted the grading challenges on the Multi - Family side of the creek and various locations that
require large retaining walls adjacent to the creek. Bob and Freddy concurred that grading within
the creek setbacks would provide a more natural condition than large walls and would be
acceptable.
Proposed Path within Creek Setbacks
• Bob asked about the path shown within the creek setbacks and discussed the potential alternatives
for that path. He advised that a path could be constructed in the creek setbacks with unpaved trail
surfaces or with asphalt concrete material.
• John mentioned that the path shown on the site plan is in conflict with the proposed grading along
the creek and would need to be shifted to the toe of slope. Bob and Freddy concurred with that
concept and the team discussed the Park setting and connectivity provided by the paths. It was
understood by all that this would be in the large storm event section of the creek but it was
determined to be a temporary issue and to move ahead with the toe of slope location for the path.
Also, fencing for the properties and path along the creek needs to be coordinated when the details
are developed.
Proposed Drainage Concepts
• Freddy asked about the drainage for the Multi - Family interior roadway that runs parallel to 'A' Street
and dead -ends into the creek. John discussed the drainage plan and challenges on the Multi -
Family side of the creek. Freddy suggested that a filter inlet at the end of the road and storm water
treatment area in the adjacent creek setback might fit well with the site plan. This treatment area
would need to provide storm water filtration that meets the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
current requirements before discharging the storm water into the creek.
• The team discussed the detention basin serving the Single - Family side of the creek that will serve
as a park during dry weather. Bob suggested the De Vaul Park as an example for a successful
dual -use facility that was recently constructed on Madonna Rd at the base of the Irish Hills.
Relentless Pursuit of the Elegant Solution.