HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2015 ARC Draft Minutes of 03-02-15DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
March 2, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, and Chairperson
Greg Wynn
Commr. Patricia Andreen arrived at 5:07 p.m.
Absent: Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie and 1 Position Vacant
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of February 18, 2015, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 3000 Calle Malva. ARCH-0592-2014; Review of 18 single-family home designs
and approval of concept designs for future homes with an approved addendum of
environmental impact; R-1-SP/R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP-PD zones; Margarita
Ranch SLO LLC, applicant.
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending
continuation of the project with direction to the applicant on revisions to house designs
for consistency with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and the approved Plan
Development.
Commr. Curtis inquired whether the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) required a
variety of building styles within a development; Senior Planner Dunsmore responded
that it is not required.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Andreen, Senior Planner Dunsmore confirmed that,
in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), “should” is taken to mean “shall,” and that,
in evaluating this project, the MASP is the guiding document, and the CDG the
supporting document. Mr. Dunsmore confirmed that the Commission would need to
Draft ARC Minutes
March 2, 2015
Page 2
make findings relating to overall consistency and existing constraints, in order to
approve design exceptions.
Dennis Moresco, Midland Pacific Homes, and Frances Gibbs, Pults & Associates,
applicants, summarized the project and noted the various site and tract map constraints.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Root, the applicants confirmed that affordable
housing is planned for the interior of the development, and that it is commonplace for
Mission Revival architecture to lack roof eaves.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Curtis, the applicants stated that lots 19-57, 58-61
and 63 will be built from approximately four different floor plans.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jaimee Frankian, SLO, project neighbor, noted concerns about grading and drainage,
pedestrian and transit access, the height of fencing, and overflow from limited parking.
Mario Jiminez, SLO, project neighbor, requested more information about the timeline
and location of the adjacent bike path.
Debbie Johnson, SLO, expressed concern about project screening measures for noise
and privacy.
There were no further comments from the public.
In response to public comment, Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the bike path
would be developed as adjacent properties developed along Prado Road. Associate
Planner Cohen noted that the conditions of approval for the tract map included
measures to prevent overlook, noise emission, and the impact of drainage, and that
parking is calculated to be sufficient.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Curtis requested that staff provide copies of relevant pages from the MASP
when the project is returned for final review, along with the rationale for findings
supporting design exceptions, and commented on the apparent dissonance between
the project’s Planned Development and the MASP.
In response to inquiry from Chair Wynn, Senior Planner Dunsmore provided language
from two portions of the MASP regarding residential parking: Parking should be located
at the rear of lots unless the lot is located on the uphill side of street along the base of
the hills (...) and Covered or enclosed parking in the front part of a lot shall be recessed
at least 1.5 meters (five feet) from the front of the house.
Draft ARC Minutes
March 2, 2015
Page 3
Chair Wynn emphasized the ARC’s desire to adhere to the CDG language that a
garage should be visually subordinate [to the rest of the front of the home], and stated
that a highly-constrained tract map should not necessarily lead to the approval of
noncompliant designs or expansive exceptions.
Commr. Root voiced support for granting design exceptions to accommodate for site
constraints.
Commr. Andreen noted concern that the requested design exceptions may undermine
the sense of neighborhood community encouraged by the CDG, and stated that the
narrowest exceptions possible should be granted. Commr. Nemcik concurred.
Commr. Nemcik remarked that the proposed homes’ numerous “faux” and “decorative”
features conflict with the CDG’s guideline that “Materials should be used honestly,”
noting specifically that, were they real, the proposed false shutters would be too small to
cover the windows.
There was consensus that the Commission cautiously supports the project, so long as
design exceptions do not become the norm, and so long as specific exceptions be
granted on a per-lot basis, after considering the rationale for each.
There was consensus among the Commission to offer the following direction to staff
and the applicants:
a. Recess the garage in accordance with guideline documents whenever possible.
b. Use smooth stucco finish for building exteriors per the CDG; provide a soils
report for ARC review.
c. Reduce trash can enclosure height to four feet, six inches with staff verifying
that each individual enclosure is necessitated by site constraints.
d. Install higher-quality wood fencing, incorporating metal posts, in order to create
a more durable fence structure.
e. Return the designs for “hillside” lots 19-57, and lots 58-61 & 63, to the ARC in
batches for review.
f. The ARC does not support granting a blanket exception allowing the utilization
of R-1 zone standards for lots 6-18 and 58-71; instead it will review each lot
individually and grant exceptions only as needed.
g. The ARC supports allowing lots 58 and 59 to be built out with two-story units;
but require that the two-story design for lot 19 be returned for review.
Draft ARC Minutes
March 2, 2015
Page 4
h. The ARC supports waiving the requirement for parking in front of garages on
lots constrained by size or grading.
i. In each cluster of inward-facing homes, the Planned Development should have
front doors oriented towards the private streets in order to offer an additional
community-oriented amenity to compensate for the homes’ diminished
integration with the larger community.
j. Utilize two-piece clay roof tile rather than S-shaped roof tile.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast – Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming
projects.
3. Commission:
Following discussion, Senior Planner Dunsmore solicited input on a Commission
tour of approved projects in the City.
Commr. Root noted his recent attendance at a Save Our Downtown meeting.
Chair Wynn commented on the recent Mayor’s Quarterly Advisory Body Luncheon.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary