Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2014 C13 Resolution upholding appeals of Pacific Courtyard Design FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING APPEALS AND DENYING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13). RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeals and denying the project without prejudice, based on findings of inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. DISCUSSION On November 10, 2014, the City Council voted 4 to 0 (Vice Mayor Christianson recused 1) to uphold the two appeals filed by adjoining property owners to deny the final project design approved by the Architectural Review Commission on September 8, 2014. One appeal was submitted by Alice Davis, and the second appeal was submitted by Stewart and Diane Jenkins. The Council Agenda Report for the appeals indicated that staff would return to City Council with the appropriate findings to uphold the appeals and deny the project. A resolution has been prepared for the Council’s adoption with the directed findings for project denial. The resolution includes a finding that would allow the applicant to submit a revised project design within one year of the adoption of the resolution for project denial. The resolution also includes the following two conditions regarding the future review of a revised project: 1. Plans for a revised project design shall be considered by both the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission at a joint public hearing. 2. The final decision of the project design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On August 19, 2008, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the prior version of the project. In this case, the revised project description is updated through the Addendum approved by the City Council on June 10, 2014 and documentation is provided that no new significant environmental impacts are created by the modified project. ATTACHMENT 1. Draft Resolution 1 Councilwoman Christianson recused herself based on the fact the proposed project is within 500’ of her residence. 11/18/14 C13 C13 - 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING APPEALS AND DENYING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONTAINING NINE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, for conceptual review of Planning Application ARC 96-13, a mixed-use project with nine dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area and continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 4, 2014, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final approval and continued action with six directional items; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2014, and granted final design approval to the mixed-use project; and WHEREAS, adjacent neighbors Alice Davis and Stewart and Diane Jenkins filed separate appeals of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 10, 2014, for the purpose of considering the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission’s action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, the Cultural Heritage Committee hearings and actions, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: C13 - 2 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 2 1. The project is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massing and architectural design is not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic District. 2. The project is inconsistent with guidance contained in the City’s Community Design Guidelines, which encourage projects that have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures. 3. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.64.010 A., the City Council finds that there is good cause to allow the applicant to submit revised project plans within one year of the City Council’s action to deny the final project design. 4. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 19, 2008. On June 10, 2014, the City Council approved an Addendum to document the revised project description and eliminate no longer relevant mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby upholds the appeals and denies the Architectural Review Commission’s action without prejudice to grant final approval to the mixed-use project (ARC 96-13) with nine dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area, with the following conditions. Conditions: 1. Plans for a revised project design shall be considered by both the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission at a joint public hearing. 2. The final decision of the project design shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx C13 - 3 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Page 3 ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney C13 - 4