Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2015 ARC Draft Minutes of 01-21-2015DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 21, 2015 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson – Position Vacant Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ELECTION: Commr. Wynn was elected unanimously as Chairperson and Commr. Ehdaie was elected unanimously as Vice-Chairperson. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 323 Grand Avenue. ARC 25-13; Review of four new single-family residences in a previously-approved four-lot subdivision with an exemption from CEQA; R-1 zone; Ryan Petetit and John Belsher, applicants. (Marcus Carloni) Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the project to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant on revisions, based on findings, and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carolyn Smith, SLO, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, stated that the purpose of her organization is to protect neighborhoods from this type of mini-dorm project. She predicted that these homes will become student rentals like the residences on Leroy Court. She expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent for other other large lots in R-1 neighborhoods. She stated that the parking is inadequate because there will be at least 20 students, maybe more, living in these four homes. She asserted that students will not use garages for parking but, instead, they and their guests will park in the surrounding neighborhood. She noted that this project will Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 2 become a noise nightmare with the courtyard area between the homes becoming “party central.” She added that these projects create enforcement and neighborhood problems, and that this property would be adequate for one R-1 residence but not for this project. Linda White, SLO, stated she has already presented a letter to the City voicing the concerns of the Monterey Heights Neighbors group plus a personal letter expressing her own concerns. She noted that since she owns a rental at 250 Grand Avenue in addition to her own home on Slack Street, she should have been noticed about the Planning Commission meeting on this project; however, she never received that notice. She added that she would have attended that meeting. She stated that this four-house mini-dorm project would be lovely if built in a new neighborhood but not in this established neighborhood. She stated that these homes are not compatible with the neighborhood because the 29% living-space-to-lot-size ratio is higher than the 21-24% norm for the neighborhood. She presented photos showing parked cars lining the streets. Thom Brajkovich, SLO, supported the project. He stated that, as an architect, he gets lots of calls from retirees, baby boomers, and professors wanting single-family homes downtown. He noted that this project is nicely designed and infill is better than urban expansion. He added that a very similar project was built in his neighborhood on Pismo Street where four families, mostly retired couples, moved in, they all park in the garages, and it is never crowded or noisy; therefore it cannot be assumed that students will occupy these homes which are assets to the street, meet code and zoning standards, and are commensurate in size with surrounding homes. He stated that the issue of student housing should be taken up with Cal Poly. Sharon Whitney, SLO, stated she lives in the Alta Vista neighborhood which was established in the 1940s-50s as a single-family residential area but that sometime in the 1980s it began to creep toward being something less than that and now the people living there are not the same as they once were. She stated she would love it if a professor or retiree would move into these homes. She called the smaller lots density creep that is creating a neighborhood which is effectively not R-1 anymore. She added that she thinks this project will be like Leroy Court. Anne Wyatt, SLO, supported approval with the conditions outlined by staff. She stated that she thinks of the benefits of density, not the detriments, because sprawling causes a lot more problems in terms of increased traffic, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution. She stated that noise and parking are legitimate issues but that the City needs to look at ways to handle that including stronger enforcement. She noted that more people living downtown reduces the use of vehicles. She stated that the reality of demographics is that we are seeing more and more single persons who live alone and appreciate living downtown in higher density housing. Associate Planner Carloni responded to public and applicant comments by noting that the project complies with zoning and no exceptions have been requested; staff Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 3 calculations for living space and lot size did not include the access driveway because the calculation is about intensity of use, not scale; the applicant's presentation included the access; and the project on McCollum used by the applicant for comparison has similar sizes for housing but the lots are larger. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Root stated he appreciated the applicant's efforts in using architecture and site planning to make the project as compatible as possible with the neighborhood but that he is also sensitive to the calculations and comparisons to existing homes. He stated he would support the project with the conditions in the staff report. Commr. Nemcik agreed with Commr. Root and added that the detailing and articulation are done well but that her big concern is parking. She noted that she understands the parking requirements have been met but, to be realistic, these homes are probably going to be occupied by students and the downstairs room will be a bedroom. She stated that she supports the Planning Commission recommendations. Commr. Ehdaie stated that her concern is that the Leroy Court project set a precedent in density and parking and that this area is being used for student housing, but she supports this project because it meets all the requirements. Commr. Andreen stated that the project is a gift to the street in terms of aesthetics but that the street will suffer the consequences. She called Leroy Court an aberration that was approved under different rules. She noted that the numbers in the staff report support the notion that this is not consistent with the neighborhood as designed and she supports the project as presented by staff. Commr. Curtis stated the similar development on Pismo Street referred to by Mr. Brajkovich is actually different because those units all have two bedrooms, a type of housing needed in the City. He noted that, because of location and size, the homes in this project are going to create some problems despite compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. He supported all of the recommendations in the staff report and agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation that Unit 1 have access via the common driveway like the other three units. He noted that the Planning Commission was implicit in their concern about the scale and size of the buildings and the creation of substandard-sized lots. He stated that much of the reduction in living space should be on the upper floors to create greater articulation and reduce the boxy look of the units, and that the smaller size may reduce their desirability as investment properties. Commr. Wynn stated that Leroy Court is a Planned Unit Development which is different than this project. He added that the project is out-of-scale with the neighborhood. He supported staff recommendations about size reduction and noted that while the Commission cannot say these homes may not have media rooms or students may not Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 4 live there, directional items 2 and 3 effectively reduce the bedroom count. He noted that the Commission's purview is size and mass and suggested adding “and mass” just after “overall square footage” in directional items 2 and 3. He supported adding Lot 1 to the common driveway. Commr. Andreen and other Commissisoners supported leaving Lot 1 as presented because of staff's concern about putting more cars on the common drive. Associate Planner Carloni asked for clarification of the Commission's view about using “should” or “shall” in item 4. Commr. Curtis stated that he supports the latter half of Item 4: “...while maintaining similar building footprints and providing reduced-size upper floor areas” as a way of reducing the boxiness and noted it does not matter which room is eliminated. Commrs. Root and Wynn agreed with Commr. Curtis about eliminating any mention of specific rooms. After further discussion, it was agreed that the reference to specific rooms should be deleted and “should” be replaced with “shall” in Item 4. Commr. Wynn stated the architecture is great but the project should be “put on a diet.” Commr. Andreen agreed and added that the project is better than good. The applicant stated that he wanted final action taken at this meeting. Commrs. Curtis and Wynn stated that they want to see the project come back before final approval. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Root, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to continue the project with direction to the applicant on revisions, based on findings, and subject to conditions including the addition of “and mass” to directional item 2 after “Lots 1 and 4: Reduce the overall square footage...” and to directional item 3 after “Lots 2 and 3: Reduce the overall square footage...”; and directional item 4 to read “The reduction in square footage/scale of the proposed residences shall maintain similar building footprints and provide reduced-size upper-floor areas. AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 5 2. 40 Prado Road. ARCH-0414-2014; Review of a new Homeless Services Center; O-PD zone; CAPSLO of San Luis Obispo County, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) Associate Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Pasquini, SLO, owner of the Sunset Drive-in Theater, stated that he appreciates the willing cooperation of CAPSLO. He noted that he has two concerns: 1) security fencing for the theater and the farmland that does not impede flood waters; and 2) lighting on poles as short as possible and pointed away from the theater. Mila Vujovich-LeBarre, SLO, supported the concept of the homeless shelter and noted she was in favor of the original location. She stated she is concerned because the shelter is adjacent to Prado Road, a future four-lane truck highway, and the sleeping area and western side could be impacted by truck noise and fumes. She noted that there could be mitigations to these impacts. She stated that she wants to make sure that traffic flow is very obvious because people will arrive via bicycle, bus, walking, and vehicles. She supported installing solar panels in the parking lot like those at local school sites that could make money for the center. She noted that the biggest concern at the City Council meeting was that the south and west elevations would be impacted by noise and pollution from the future Prado/101 interchange. Anne Wyatt, SLO, supported approval but asked that staff explain the requirement for a bicycle enclosure that would make bikes less visible and therefore less secure. Associate Planner Cohen stated that the covered bicycle enclosure would provide security for people staying overnight but the type of fencing could be open, not a wall. Architect Garcia stated he supported open fencing and noted there will be bike lockers. Senior Planner Dunmore stated that a bicycle enclosure is typically a bike cage which is a lockable fenced-in enclosure. He noted that he just received a written public comment during the meeting that he will pass on to the Commission. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Andreen stated she has no concerns but wants more detail about the fencing. Commr. Wynn suggested a condition stating “Eight-foot security fencing to the adjacent neighbors to be worked out at the staff level.” He asked Supervising Civil Engineer Hannula to explain deferred frontage improvements in Conditions 21 and 22. Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 6 Engineer Hannula stated the conditions were included due to future road changes. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root to adopt the Draft Resolution approving the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, including a condition that “Eight-foot security fencing to the adjacent neighbors to be worked out at the staff level.”. AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 3. 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARC-C 96-14; Conceptual review of a mixed-use project with 69 dwelling units and 3,000 square feet of commercial space; C-S-H zone; Pat Arnold and Damien Mavis, applicants. (Phil Dunsmore) Commr. Wynn recused himself from consideration of 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue because he sometimes works for the applicant. He left the meeting. Senior Planner Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lea Brooks, SLO, stated her family has a business, Brooks Woodcraft, across the street, which will be affected by this project. She noted a discrepancy between the public notice, stating a lower square footage and only 49 units, and the staff report. She stated she supports infill projects but did not see mention of bicycle parking so she hopes the project will be reviewed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. She suggested separate parking for residents, employees, and customers. She noted that Santa Barbara Street is heavily traveled by cars and bikes so there needs to be sufficient setback to make it safe to go in and out of Miners. She added that she has seen a lot of pedestrian traffic crossing this street. She stated she supports the Emily Street bike path and was glad to hear that the target population is not students. Myron Amerine, SLO, stated that the plot map does not include any bike facilities when there should be one space per residence. He noted that the applicant anticipates renting to millennials, some who will not have cars and some who will have expensive bikes. He added that the City has a 20% mode share shift goal which should be reflected in this project. He stated that if the homeless center will have 50 bike spaces, this project should have at least 25. Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 7 Anne Wyatt, SLO, supported this project and noted she likes the the bridge, the long wall, and the towers. She suggested a variance for the towers. She added that the mix of studios and one-bedroom units will meet the needs of the growing number of single- person households. She noted that this is a huge opportunity to provide more bike- friendly facilities, including access to Emily Street, and that the bike enclosure here should be really enclosed. She also supported the troweled plaster suggested by staff. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Andreen stated the speakers made good suggestions, especially about bicycles. She noted that she wants to see how the architectural style relates to the surrounding buildings and added that she likes the idea of a band around the building and mullions, as mentioned in the staff report, to break up the windows. She approved of the tower height and stated that she understands the applicant's position about the long side and suggested that some color variation might help. Commr. Curtis stated he thinks the types of residential units are good and, when the project comes back to the Commission, he wants to see drawings that show adjacent structures and more information on site circulation, especially since there is a shared driveway with Miner’s. He noted that the staff report shows the project does not have the required number of vehicle parking spaces so he wants to know if an exception will be requested or more parking provided. He added that the living units could be shared by two people. He stated he tends to share staff's concern that the long façade on the Miner’s side needs to be broken up. He suggested the bridge structure be reduced to just the first floor to break up the skyline of the building from the Miner’s side. He expressed concern that, while the structure facing Santa Barbara Street does incorporate some of the Railroad Vernacular style, the other sides do not, and the two elements do not marry well. He noted he was referring to the shed roofs on the front. He encouraged consideration of building materials that might reflect the Railroad Vernacular style, such as brick and metal. He stated he has some concern with the stucco but not with the towers which help break up the design. Commr. Nemcik agreed with recommendation 3 to break up the north elevation but appreciated the difficulty because it would never really be viewed that way. She noted she would like to see it done just a little more so it does not look accidental. She stated that she really likes the two-story bridge and the way it cuts through but suggested that perhaps it should be brought down just a little. She stated that this is a great project. Commr. Root stated he is fine with the tower height and is not as concerned about the massing and articulation as he is about the level of detail. He stated he agrees with Commr. Nemcik that if the bridge were made a little more shallow, that could be enough. He suggested picking an element, such as light or dark gray, and playing that up with lintels, cornices, etc., to enhance the rhythm. He added he would be in favor of Draft ARC Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 8 pulling the bridge out with other materials with expressed pronounced details. He agreed with the speaker comments about circulation and bike storage. Commr. Ehdaie agreed with the other Commissioners and asked if it would be possible to show the pedestrian access between the residential and the retail/commercial components. She supported adding bicycle parking. She noted that she bikes on Santa Barbara Street and knows there is a safety issue there that should be addressed. Senior Planner Dunsmore stated having good visual access through the site is a design issue. He added that the City will determine if public improvements are required so that vehicles entering and exiting can be easily seen. Engineer Hannula stated that even something as simple as the driveway approach design is important to get cars off the street quickly. He noted that bikes and buses complicate that and that the southern driveway design is heading in the right direction. Commr. Curtis stated that the main entrance to the apartments at the rear needs more emphasis and that it is just the width of the sidewalk right now. He suggested creating a little more outdoor space there and emphasizing that space architecturally. He stated he does not know why there are two entrances to the front of the residential building that are so close together. He noted the need to draw attention to the main lobby. There were no further comments made from the Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast—Feb 2, 2015, four items: mixed use on Santa Barbara Street close to Railroad Square, adjacent to Del Monte Café; new location for SLO Brewery on Aero Vista; Bluebird Salon on Marsh; and affordable housing at 860 Humbert. 5. Commission: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary