Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Johnson 30. is DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT COUNCIL MEETING: 2-11 — ITEM NO.: council mEmouanbum February 17, 2015 City Council Katie Lichtig, City Manager Q+1 Derek Johnson, Community Development Director PH -1 — 1845 Monterey Hotel FEB 17 2015 Staff has received a request from Councilmembers for the following information and is distributing it to all Council members regarding the 1845 Monterey Hotel project. Questions /Comments A member of the public sent an email to Council regarding the project plans not illustrating the minimum number of required parking spaces (131 spaces); eight spaces not shown. Response: Staff double - checked the plans, counting all parking spaces shown in the subterranean parking garage and at -grade parking area and determined that the project complies with the parking requirement, 132 spaces are shown on plans. Also see response #3 below. 1. Council Policies and Procedures (6.4.3.1) indicate that during appeals of an Advisory Body decision, that body's Chair or Vice -Chair may be seated next to the Department Head and is expected to make a part of the presentation. In my 6 years on the Council, I cannot remember a single instance where this has been done — however, I do believe that it might be helpful in this instance. In addition, the high risk of litigation on this item might suggest that it would be advisable to comply with this policy. I strongly recommend that we have the Chairs or Vice - Chairs of both the PC and the ARC on hand for the meeting (John Larson and Michelle McCovey- Good). Response: The Chairs of the ARC and PC will be in attendance. 2. Much of the controversy surrounding this project concerns the use of the term "minimizes " in Criterion 2 in Ordinance 1130— referring to "building openings" (doors, windows, balconies) facing the creek. See the letter from the appellant group San Luis Drive Area Advocates for Balanced Community Development by Babak Naficy (February 12, 2015). On page 2 of that letter, he objects to the fact that 27 hotel windows are still 'facing the creek, " even though balconies have been removed. I would not propose that the building be redesigned to eliminate these windows. However, I would like to include a new condition for Council consideration that calls for this project to return to the ARC with a specific change 1845 Monterey Hotel Memo (2/17/15) Page 2 to the eastern fagade that would enable the hotel windows to be re- oriented so as to not `face the creek" directly? Here's one way that 1 might propose this condition be written: "The project shall be resubmitted to the ARC to consider a re- design for the eastern fagade of the building that further minimizes the orientation of the windows directly facing the creek. " One solution might be simply to rotate by 90- the `pedestal" building to parallel the main building, thus replacing 21 windows `facing the creek" (seven per floor) with six (two per floor). In your opinion, would such a condition potentially improve compliance with Criterion 2? Response: Ordinance No. 1130 does not prohibit hotel rooms facing the creek. By way of Design Criterion #2, it is recognized that rooms may /will face the creek but requires that the "building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek" [that area associated with those rooms] be minimized. The applicant has removed all balconies facing the creek but has retained the balcony railings for design aesthetics and to provide window screening. The remaining windows facing the creek are designed to the minimum allowed window size for light and egress standards required by the California Building Code. 3. Another significant point of contention appears to center on the interpretation of Criterion 7 in Ordinance 1130, which calls for "noise- generating uses such as parking and outdoor activity areas " to be "buffered "from the creek by buildings. The revised site plan now proposes that the lower -level parking garage be enclosed, which certainly improves compliance with Ordinance 1130; the resulting enclosed lower -level lot would effectively BE a building. However, the ground -level parking area which is intended to serve the restaurant does appear to be questionable as to compliance with Criterion 7, since there are still at least 20 parking spaces that extend easterly of the "pedestal" building that rises above this lot. Accordingly, I'd like the Council to be able to consider a condition requiring the ARC to review and approve a re- design that would enclose the ground -level parking area as well. In your opinion, would such a re- design improve compliance with Criterion 7? Response: Design Criterion #7 indicates that "noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer." The Ordinance's "should" language recognizes that there may /will be instances in which parking may not be buffered, or entirely buffered, by buildings. With the redesign, approximately 84% of parking is within or otherwise buffered by a building and the remaining —20 parking spaces are buffered with a 5 -foot sound /headlight wall. Furthermore, the intent of Criterion #7 was to mitigate noise impacts toward the San Luis Drive neighborhood and the Acoustic Analysis prepared by David Dubbink Associates (ECAR Attachment 12) demonstrates compliance with the City's noise standards (sound dissipating to 41 decibels (dB) at the nearest residential property line where 45 dB is the nighttime maximum). If the City Council determines the —20 parking spaces are not adequately buffered by the sound /headlight wall to be compliant with the intent of Criterion #7, further enclosure of the grade -level parking area by way of garage structure or taller sound wall(s) could be determined to improve compliance. 1845 Monterey Hotel Memo (2/17/15) Page 3 4. I understand that the revised project no longer includes a sub - surface stormwater retention system below the parking lot, and that project is no longer proposing to use the easternmost parking spaces that were previously considered to be "grand-fathered". As I understand it, the new stormwater retention system would essentially be built in place of that existing easternmost parking area that encroaches into the 20' setback. Please highlight this change during your presentation, and comment as to whether the net result is an improvement to the integrity of the riparian zone. Response: Contaminants from the existing parking lot (e.g. oil, trash, dirt, debris) run -off the parking lot surface and into the creek with limited treatment /filtration. The proposed subterranean stormwater detention/retention system will result in upgraded water quality treatment reducing pollutants moving downstream into the Creek and improving the riparian zone. 5. I want to acknowledge the very useful graphic analysis in Attachment 13 which compares the distance between this proposed hotel and the nearest residence to each of the other hotels along upper Monterey Street. A common objection by project opponents has been that this project is simply too large, too massive, or too high. Additionally, there is a brief discussion that compares these other hotels to the proposed project on page PHI -17. Could we also have a comparison of the differences in FLOOR AREA RATIO, as well? At least for the larger hotels (i.e., Apple Farm, Holiday Inn, Quality Suites, or Lamplighter)? It would help me, for one, to decide whether this proposed project is indeed, as many have argued, "too large " etc. The FAR metric is one of the best ways — perhaps THE best way — of capturing the issue of size and scale relative to site area. Response: We are working to review approved plan sets in an attempt to have this information by the start of the hearing. The project is below the 2.5 Floor Area Ratio allowed in the Tourist Commercial zone, compliant with the Zoning Regulations. The project proposes an FAR of 0.97 which is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the building, 60,368 sq. ft., by the gross area of the lot within the C -T zone, 62,353 sq. ft. Please note: The staff report calculation in table 2.2 (page PHI-4) incorrectly overestimates the FAR by including at -grade and subterranean parking areas in the calculation. 6 I am a little concerned about the fact that the applicant is requesting a 15% parking reduction, which is typically applied in a case like this where the restaurant is more of breakfast -lunch establishment rather than a dinner house and pub. I suggest that we consider a condition that would require a reciprocal parking agreement for offsite parking with another nearby property for, say, 10 additional spaces. If so, what is the maximum distance that we would typically apply — 300'? 500'? Response: Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060.17 (off -site parking) requires the off -site parking location to be within 300 feet of the use and not separated by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. Please note, it may be difficult Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.100 (Definitions): Floor Area Ratio: The gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)). Floor area ratio does not include below grade or subterranean parking garages and basements or similar non - conditioned floor space. 1845 Monterey Hotel Memo (2/17/15) Page 4 for the applicant to obtain an off -site parking agreement with a neighboring property owner. The neighboring owner would need to have an excess of parking spaces (or land to improve for parking) and be willing to allow the applicant use of those spaces. 7. Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to these items /conditions in the proposed resolution that may not be applicable, or which might be improved with some "tweaking" of the proposed wording: a. Use permit finding 49 (p. PHI-22).- See item #6 above — I'm not sure I can make this finding. b. Mitigation Measure AES -I (fencing /landscaping to screen headlights facing eastward in the ground -level parking lot). This item might be unnecessary if the parking area is enclosed (as I suggest above). c. Use permit condition 916 — the proposed green- screen living wall — still needed if the parking is enclosed? Response: The proposed green- screen living wall referenced in condition #16 is separate from the fencing /landscaping screen for vehicle headlights references in Mitigation Measure AES -1. The proposed green- screen living wall would be located at the front of the property and used to screen a blank portion of the Travelodge building that would be adjacent to the proposed hotel's southerly driveway (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet L1.0 callout #9). d. Use permit conditions #18 -20 — noise reduction measures within the parking areas needed if enclosed? Response: These conditions should remain as they still apply to the grade -level parking area. e. Use Permit condition #38a — bike racks condition appears to be very prescriptive. Do we permit alternative designs? I've seen some very attractive wrought -iron designs that seem to me to qualify as public art. Response: The standards for bicycle racks (Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.3.172) allow alternate bicycle rack design as long as the design meets three standards: 1. Stand a minimum of 30 inches from the ground and stabilizing a bike with at least two contact points for a bicycle frame. 2. Allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack. 3. Be mounted on a concrete surface with proper clearances. 8. Don't we typically have a condition referencing the project's obligation to provide on -site public art or contribute in -lieu fees for this purpose? I would strongly encourage us to require an on -site art installation without the in -lieu alternative, given the nature of this project. Response: The public art requirement was not included as a condition of approval since it is a Code Requirement. A condition can be added encouraging the applicant to provide public art within the project rather than paying the fee. 1845 Monterey Hotel Memo (2/17/15) Page 5 Please contact Derek Johnson (Johnson(abslocity.org) or Marcus Carloni (mcarlonikslocity.org) should there be any questions.