The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-18-2014 C13 JenkinsNOV 18 2014 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony ''OUNCIL MEETING. Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 7:38 PM F EM NO.: G k3 To: Goodwin, Heather Cc: Christian, Kevin Subject: FW: Council Agenda item C13 (11 -18 -14 City Council meeting) Grant of Appeals and Denial of Pacific Courtyards project. Attached Resolution Suggestion. Attachments: JENKINS 11 -18 -14 Proposed Resolution.docx AC 11/18/14 Item C13 Anthony J. Mejia, MMC i City Clerk city of, s,tn LUIS OBtspO 990 Palen Street San Luis Obispo, CA 934oi tel ] 805.781.7102 From: info [mailto:info @stewjenkins.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 7:33 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Council—ALL Cc: Dietrick, Christine; gess@arris- studio.com; iameslopes @charter.net; kp3slo@charter.net Subject: Council Agenda item C13 (11 -18 -14 City Council meeting) Grant of Appeals and Denial of Pacific Courtyards project. Attached Resolution Suggestion. Mayor Marx, Council Members, Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of the Davis and Jenkins appeals of the Pacific Courtyards project [1327 Osos Street to Morro Street; ARC 96 -13] last Monday. I noticed that Section 2 of Staff's 11 -18 -14 proposed resolution upholding the appeals contained a goof in punctuation which locks the CHC, ARC and Council into approving the exact square footage of the denied project in any resubmission. This not being the intention of the Council when it upheld the Appeals and denied ARC 96 -13 without prejudice to a new plan being submitted, I thought it would be helpful to suggest a correction [SEE ATTACHED WORD DOCUMENT] by breaking the first paragraph of Section 2 into two sentences to convey that the "Said denial is without prejudice to the applicant submitting a new design ARC 96 -13 to the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission for a mixed use project of residential and office units ", and providing instructions from the Council about the new proposal being required to "conform to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Old Town Historic District." I also noticed that the "Whereas" clauses outlining the history of the project failed to memorialize the Council's chief concern and direction by omitting the history of the Cultural Heritage Committee's two hearings, or the CHC's findings and recommendations to deny the project. So it is suggested that the two underscored paragraphs in the attached proposal immediately before and immediately after the Staff's proposed first "Whereas" related to the December 16, 2013 ARC meeting should prudently be added. Besides adding this history to protect and accurately convey the Council's decision, I sensed that the Council was seeking to educate the public, the members of the two advisory bodies, the City's staff, and development professionals on the meaning of Community Design Guidelines 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 5.2 in order to expedite good planning within the Historic Zones. To give effect to that I hope the Council will consider the three underscored proposed "Whereas" clauses addressing those guidelines and the role of the CHC that are also suggested in the attached revised draft resolution. A few technical amendments are suggested to conform to the Council's directs given staff. Naturally, I copy the City Attorney to assist her in analysis of these suggestions, as well as Mr. Thom Jess who I understand is now redesigning the structures on behalf of the Pacific Courtyards applicant. It is Diane and my hope that the project will be improved by the Council's actions and by the attention so many have paid to help it fit the Old Town Historic District. Stew Jenkins Law Office of Stewart D. Jenkins 1336 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 541 -5763 Fax: (805) 547 -1608 E -Mail: infogstewjenkins.com Resolution No. (2014 Series) Page 3 Suggested Revisions to proposed resolution Attachment 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 Cultural. Heritage Committee of the Ci!y! of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the conference room of the Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo California, on November 25 2013 for conceptual review of Planning Application ARC 96 -13, a mixed use Rroject with nine dwellings and 8,000 square feet of office space in the Old `Town Historic District which resulted in a motion to depy the project to the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo and a requirement that the applicant return to the Cultural Heritage Committee for approval of a new design; and 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 Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a 12ublic hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obis o California, on June 23, 2014, related to final design approval by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis ObisporARC] of a revised Planning Application ARC 96 -13 recommending denial of the project to the ARC based on a finding that the ro'ect is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because of its massing and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings-in the Old Town; and WHEREAS Community Design Guidelines CDG 3.2.1 rovide that "New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally coml2atible with the district's prevailing historic character as measured by their consistent with the scale massing. rll hm signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures, as described in [CDG] Figures 2 and 3 "; and WHEREAS, Community Design Guidelines (CDG) 3.2.2. delegates to the Cultural Heritage Committee review of "development inhistoric districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable desia_.ri and Preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in [CDG] Section 5.2 "; and WHEREAS, Community Design Guidelines (CDG) 5.2 defines the Architectural Character of the Old Town Historic District as; 'In keeping with its peak period; of development between 1$.80 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian Architecture ... Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences ... Neo- classic Row Hose, Folk Victorian and Craftsman Bungalow, with_ many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles .... The shared first story porclies along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildin s "; 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 Resolution No. (2014 Series) Page 3 conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2014, and, in spite of the findings and two recommendation by the Cultural Heritage Committee's for denial. granted formal design approval to the mixed -use project; and WHEREAS, adjacent neighbors Alice Davis and Stewart & 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: 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 formal 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 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. Said denial is without prejudice to the applicant submitting a new design ARC 96 -13 to the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission for a mixed use project of residential and office units, which design must conform to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Old Town Historic District. Conditions: 1. Plans for a revised project design shall be considered by both the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission, separately, at a joint public hearing_ with direction to discuss between them the application of the Communit Design Guidelines within Historic Districts designated by this City. 2. The formal decision of the project design shall be subject to return to the City Council for review and approval of the City Council. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: Resolution No. (2014 Series) Page 3 ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney