Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 EquinoaCOUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO,; -7NA I My name is Sally Equinoa and I have lived in the SL Dr. neighborhood for 28 years. I want to share comments from the ARC, specifically Ken Curtis, and comments from the Planning Commissioners, Multari, Draze, Fowler & Malak regarding size, scale, mass & compatibility. Because the minutes from the ARC do not reflect the whole story and you have only the draft of the Planning Commission minutes they have been selected to give you a feel for the opinion of some commissioners concerning the issue of size and mass and fit with its surroundings. These are comments from the ARC and PC meetings. FEB 17 2015 • ARC: Ken Curtis: "This project is not consistent with design guidelines. I disagree with staff; in saying some of the issues are only the responsibility of the Planning Commission and not the ARC.I have issue with the Scale and Mass of the building; it is much larger and taller than the other buildings on the creek side of Monterey St. and inappropriate for the site. It is doubly inappropriate, given the potential and historical consideration of the Julia Morgan building one structure away. Setbacks and massing are too large on rear of property facing creek. This has the appearance of a 5 story building. The Planning Commission statements about size and mass are interspersed with comments about asserting its right and need to comment on them. Direction from Community Development said that ARC had already handled the issue and therefore it was outside the Planning Commission purview. • Planning Commissioner: Multari: One of the problems the staff had was trying to differentiate the ARC and Planning Commission jurisdictions and staff suggested the Planning Commission not consider scale and mass. I think this is wrong. The driving motivation behind this special designation was to ensure compatibility between commercial and residential. This notion of compatibility encompasses all these elements including the size of the building, where it is located and scale and mass. I think it is a legitimate part of the analysis of compatibility. The way this project is designed- the size of it, the parking locations, all that I articulated- I would argue this is not the proper project. So I do think it's important we consider reducing the height, the number of rooms, relocating the parking and reducing the number of parking spaces. I think the point that this is precedent setting is a very good one. Looking at the L -U -C -E update re: upper Monterey... the intent of the update, if anything, is stronger in protecting the residential character, not weakening it in any way. I also think the maximums set in this ordinance are maximums and the judgment about compatibility does not give any property owner a right of maximum. Those are just that, maximums. • Planning commissioner: Draze: I disagree in saying scale and massing is usually an ARC issue. Our purview should include mass and size... I cannot support the project the way it is sitting before us tonight without big changes. • Commissioner Fowler: I'm glad we can look at mass and size. I came into this evening thinking the project meets the requirements, but I think it is the wrong project. It is too big. It does affect the character of the community. I cannot support this. • Commissioner Malak: I agree. Mass, size, scale and compatibility are my concerns. It is too large for this area.