HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Presentation1) Review of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold an appeal of an Administrative Use Permit; and 2) review of an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to approve the design of a proposed 102 unit hotel building with associated site improvements and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
February 17, 2015
Applicant: West Coast Asset Management
Representative: George Garcia, Garcia Architecture + Design
1845/1865 Monterey Hotel
File No. 143-13
Outline
1.Recommendation
2.Site Information and Setting
3.Project Description
4.Background and project history
5.Use Permit Appeal analysis
6.ARC Appeal analysis
2
Recommendation
3
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that approves
the project (as redesigned by the applicant), thereby
approving an Administrative Use Permit, a 15% parking
reduction, the design of the project, and adopting a MND.
Situation
Council Review:
PC Appeal: Determine the project’s consistency with the
requirements of:
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Zoning Regulations
Applicable City standards
ARC Appeal: Determine the project’s consistency with the
requirements of:
Community Design Guidelines
4
Vicinity Map
5
Zone: C-T-S
Size: 1.93 acres
Existing: Restaurant,
Tudor Revival Structure,
parking improvements
Vicinity Map
6
Zone: C-T-S
Size: 1.93 acres
Existing: Restaurant,
Tudor Revival Structure,
parking improvements
Vicinity Map
7
Zone: C-T-S
Size: 1.93 acres
Existing: Restaurant,
Tudor Revival Structure,
parking improvements
Project Description
8
1)Redevelopment of the site with a 102-unit hotel with parking, guest
lounge, meeting space, fitness room, and managers unit.
4-story building
Main entrance, hotel lobby, and outdoor terraces fronting Monterey Street
2)Total of 131 at grade and subterranean parking spaces
15% parking reduction request (23 space reduction)
Removal of 10 existing paved parking spaces located in the C/OS-5 zoned
portion of the site
3)Retaining Pappy McGregor’s restaurant (1864 Monterey Street)
Demolition of existing Tudor Revival Style Building (1845 Monterey)
4)Contemporary design: cement plaster, composite wood siding, alternating
wood detailing.
Project Description
9
Background
10
1)Special Considerations Overlay Zone
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Land use compatibility between commercial uses and residential
uses adjacent to San Luis Creek.
Includes requirements related to:
Lowered height and additional setback from creek and C/OS
Structures relationship to creek (e.g. lighting,
glazing/openings/balconies, vegetation, and grading/draining).
Background
11
2)Use Permit review: due to S-Overlay
2)ARC review: compliance with Ordinance No. 1130 items related to
design and the Community Design Guidelines
Use Permit
Approval
8-18-2014
Use Permit Appeal
(SLD Neighbors)
8-28-2014
ARC Approval
10-20-2014
PC Denial
(Appeal Upheld)
12-10-2014 Council Review
2-17-2015
ARC Appeal
(SLD Neighbors)
10-30-2014
PC Appeal
(Applicant)
12-17-2014
ARC Continuance
9-15-2014
Background
12
Use Permit
Approval
8-18-2014
Use Permit Appeal
(SLD Neighbors)
8-28-2014
ARC Approval
10-20-2014
PC Denial
(Appeal Upheld)
12-10-2014 Council Review
2-17-2015
ARC Appeal
(SLD Neighbors)
10-30-2014
PC Appeal
(Applicant)
12-17-2014
ARC Continuance
9-15-2014
Concerns with:
1)“Openings facing the creek”
2)“Size and mass”
Compliance with:
1)Ordinance No. 1130
2)Applicable City
standards
Concerns with:
1)Retaining the 10 existing parking spaces
2)Balconies facing the creek
3)Parking location (lower level garage in particular)
4)Height creating overlook, noise, and glare issues
5)Pedestrian Experience (Updated General Plan)
•Refutes reasons for PC Denial
•Updated Letter/Plans, January 23, 2015:
1)Revised design after meetings
with the appellant group.
Six Directional Items
1)Additional noise information
2)Lighting analysis
3)Modification to creek-facing balconies
4)Additional detail of lower level parking area
screening wall
5)Creek and upland plantings
6)Clarification on a PW driveway condition
Compliance with:
1)ARC Direction
2)Ordinance No. 1130
3)Applicable City standards
Concerns with:
1)CEQA review
2)Monday Club/Tudor Revival structure
3)Openings facing the creek
4)Scale/mass of the structure
5)Noise, Glare, buffering, and drainage/grading
Review both Appeals
13
Project Description
Site Plan
Renderings
Project Description: Site Plan
14
Existing Site Plan
Project Description: Site Plan
15
Proposed Street Grade Site Plan
`
Project Description: Site Plan
16
Proposed Below Grade Site Plan
`
Project Description
17
Project Description
18
Project Description
19
Project Description
20
Project Description
21
22
Project Analysis
Use Permit Appeal
ARC Appeal
23
Use Permit Appeal
The PC upheld the appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Use
Permit with the following primary findings related to:
1)Issues presented by maintaining the site’s ten existing parking spaces
in the CO/S-5 setback
2)Ordinance No. 1130 inconsistency associated with balconies facing the
creek not being sufficiently minimized and the location of parking
facilities (the lower level parking garage in particular)
3)Overlook, noise, and glare issues associated with the height of the
proposed building.
Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #2: “building openings (doors, windows,
balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.”
Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #2: “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.”
24
Use Permit Appeal
Before Redesign
Applicant has revised the project in an effort to address the concerns of
the San Luis Drive Neighborhood and the Planning Commission’s
findings.
1)Issues presented by maintaining the site’s ten existing parking spaces in the
CO/S-5 setback
a)Applicant has eliminated the 10 existing parking spaces in an effort to fully
enclose the lower-level parking garage
b)Removal of 10 existing spaces requires additional parking reduction (23
spaces, 15% reduction)
c)131 parking spaces provided on-site
i.153 spaces normally required, 130 spaces required (with reduction)
25
Use Permit Appeal
False balconies
(All rooms)
Removed finished floor
(all rooms)
2)Ordinance No. 1130 inconsistency associated with balconies facing the
creek not being sufficiently minimized and the location of parking facilities
(the lower level parking garage in particular)
a)Applicant has eliminated all of the doors and balconies from the
creek-facing elevation
b)Remaining windows are required by California Building Code and are designed to meet
the minimum size for natural light and emergency egress standards
26
Use Permit Appeal
2)Ordinance No. 1130 inconsistency associated with balconies facing the
creek not being sufficiently minimized and the location of parking facilities
(the lower level parking garage in particular)
a)PC discussed the lower level parking garage having an open side facing the creek.
b)Applicant has fully enclosed the lower-level parking garage
c)Results in removal of existing parking space paving and add subterranean stormwater
system
`
27
Use Permit Appeal
~140 feet
~175 feet
2)Ordinance No. 1130 inconsistency associated with balconies facing the
creek not being sufficiently minimized and the location of parking facilities
(the lower level parking garage in particular)
a)Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #2: “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.”
i.“Should” language recognizes there may/will be instances where parking is not
buffered or entirely buffered by buildings.
ii.Parking enclosed and located interior to the property
~84% of parking is within or otherwise buffered by a building
Remaining spaces (~21) are buffered by a sound/headlight wall
Acoustic Analysis demonstrates compliance with noise standards (dissipates to 41dB at
property line of nearest residential property where 45dB is the allowed nighttime maximum)
iii.Complies with setbacks, also distance and vegetation buffers
28
Use Permit Appeal
False balconies
(All rooms)
3)Overlook, noise, and glare issues associated with the height of the
proposed building.
a)Applicant has eliminated all of the doors and balconies from the creek-
facing elevation
i.Remaining balcony railings provide decorative screening
ii.Recommended Condition #4 requires window tinting and non-mirrored finishes
b)Applicant has fully enclosed the lower-level parking garage
c)Creek-facing façade is 78 yards from nearest residence
d)Flying drone photographs illustrate significant vegetation blocking overlook views
e)Photometric Analysis shows lighting levels are well within Night Sky Preservation
Requirements
Distance
29
Flying Drone Photographs
30
View from upper floors
Lighting
31
32
ARC Appeal
Residents of the San Luis Drive neighborhood appealed the ARC’s
approval with the following primary concerns related to:
1)Concerns with CEQA review
2)Protection of the Monday Club and analysis of the Tudor Revival style
structure
3)Effects of the openings facing the creek and scale/mass, noise, glare,
buffering
33
ARC Appeal
1)Concerns with CEQA review
Staff Response:
Initial Study prepared in accordance with CEQA and provides adequate
mitigation measures for any identified potentially significant effects.
Aesthetics: potential glare from vehicles utilizing the existing lower parking lot
M: vegetation and fencing to screen head lights that may face eastward
Air Quality: Temporary impacts from construction of the project
M: Project routed to APCD and their recommendations are incorporated
Biological Resources: Project adjacent to San Luis Creek – potential construction related effects.
M: Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan required, creek restoration enhancement plan required, dedication of
C/OS portion of the site as perpetual biological open space.
Cultural Resources: Not a culturally sensitive site. Due to creek proximity and demolition of a structure from the 1920’s,
historic material may be uncovered during grading.
M: Archaeologist present during demolition and ground disturbing. Report any findings to the City.
Geology/Soils: Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study/Structural Feasibility Analysis concludes that the project is
structurally feasible and the site is well-suited for the project but a final report is needed.
M: Final geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design level report based on final design of
the project is required.
34
ARC Appeal
2)Protection of the Monday Club and analysis of the Tudor Revival style
structure
Staff Response:
Monday Club (Master List Historic Resource). Not within a historic district
Separated by Travelodge Property (~100 feet) with 2-story motel and parking lot
Proposed project does not shadow, obscure views, intrude upon, nor otherwise
negatively affect the historic context or integrity of the Monday Club
Does not create a significant affect per CEQA (Section 15064.5):
Would need to create a “substantial adverse change” which means
“physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or
its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical
resource would be materially impaired.”
Materially impaired when a project:
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner the physical characteristics
of the resource that convey its significance for historic listing.
Identified historic significance per City records: Architecture, Architect, and
significance of the organization
35
ARC Appeal
2)Protection of the Monday Club and analysis of the Tudor Revival style
structure
Staff Response:
Analyzed in Cultural Resources section of Initial Study
Historic Architectural Survey Report concludes that the structure is not
historically significant locally or for the purposes of CEQA
Not associated with significant events or persons, nor does have design
distinction, nor is if the work of a master.
36
ARC Appeal
3)Effects of the openings facing the creek and scale/mass, noise, glare,
buffering
Staff Response:
As discussed:
Enclosure of parking garage and removal of all creek facing balconies
responds to this concern.
Lighting levels comply with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance
Associated sound complies with City noise requirements
Distance (78 yards) and vegetation mitigate impacts
Scale/Massing/Height/Setback:
Ordinance No. 1130 does not include criteria for size and massing
Does not lower the maximum height allowed for structures in the Tourist
Commercial zone (45 feet).
Proposed height and setbacks comply with Ordinance No. 1130 and Zoning
Regulations
37
ARC Appeal
3)Effects of the openings facing the creek and scale/mass, noise, glare,
buffering
Staff Response:
Scale/Massing/Height/Setback (Continued):
The Architectural Review Commission is tasked with reviewed
scale/massing of projects for consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
At two public hearings the ARC considered the scale/massing of the
project.
ARC approved the project finding it to:
Incorporate a mix of color/finish materials, articulation, siting,
scale, and massing that are compatible with the neighborhood
and consistent with the requirements of the Community Design
Guidelines.
38
ARC Appeal
3)Effects of the openings facing the creek and scale/mass, noise, glare,
buffering
Staff Response:
Scale/Massing/Height/Setback (Continued):
Ordinance No. 1130 provides a more restrictive stepped setback/height
scale but does not lower the maximum height.
20-foot setback from C/OS-5 boundary
Max Building Height:
25-feet if within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary
45-feet if beyond 50 feet from the C/OS-5 boundary
Project complies with setback/height requirements, no exceptions are
requested.
Site Plan
39
Proposed Street Grade Site Plan
Site Sections
40
Summary
Revisions to the project (removal of balconies and enclosure of the lower level
parking garage) address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and
comply with the design criteria of Ordinance No. 1130.
Distance studies, flying drone photographs, photometric analysis, and acoustic
analysis has shown that the project complies with City requirements, which,
coupled with the revisions to the project address noise and overlook concerns.
Initial Study prepared in accordance with CEQA and provides adequate
mitigation measures for any identified potentially significant effects.
The project does not negatively impact the historic context or integrity of the
Monday Club
The project complies with all height and setback requirements of Ordinance
No. 1130 and the Zoning Regulations.
41
Recommendation
42
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that approves
the project (as redesigned by the applicant), thereby
approving an Administrative Use Permit, a 15% parking
reduction, the design of the project, and adopting a MND.