Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2014 ARC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 6, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey -Good, and Chairperson position vacant. Absent: None. Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, and Recording Secretary Kyle Bell Elections: Vice -Chair McCovey -Good was elected Chairperson and Commr. Wynn was elected Vice - Chair. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of December 16, 2013, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 774 and 776 Palm Street. ARC 131 -13; Continued design review of a proposed classroom building and accessory staff office for Old Mission School and CEQA exemption (Class 32, Infill Development Projects); R -4 -H zone; Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission School, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final design review approval, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Commr. Ehdaie asked staff to explain the difference in the height of the east wall of the building since the previous review. Brian Leveille explained the changes from the previous ARC review which included a reduction in height for a portion of the wall for the computer /media room and the ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 2 removal of the projecting parapets which had previously been proposed for mechanical equipment screening. Jim Duffy, architect and applicant representative, explained that the project keeps the massing in line with the neighboring buildings yet does not make it look like a residence. He added that the selected architectural style is intended to not be overly adorned consistent with the Mission Revival Architectural Style. He noted that pilasters had been added to the east elevation for further articulation as well as the height of the computer room lowered and further set back from the property line in response to previous direction. He explained that the location of the media room could not be further moved back because of its proximity to an existing tree. He mentioned that ground- mounted equipment was an issue at the use permit hearing which is why it was now proposed on the roof. He added that the screening of the roof - mounted equipment matches the architecture of the building. Tina Ballantyne, Principal of Old Mission School, discussed the history of Old Mission School and its role in the community. She explained that the need for development of the project site as offsite classrooms is because classrooms previously used at Mission Prep now need to be used for computer labs. Mr. Duffy added that the site planning of the building was designed to orient away from the residences to the east to minimize noise concerns. He also mentioned that the roof style had been decided based on the best fit for the skylights and that a gable roof would not work well with skylights or with the Mission Revival architectural style. Commr. Greg Wynn asked the architect about follow -up to the directional item from the previous review recommending the school meet with the neighbors to resolve parking and pick /up drop off issues. Mr. Duffy summarized previous outreach efforts to the neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim Johnson stated that he did not think the applicants had responded to the ARC's previous direction on Condition #5. He expressed his concerns about the potential of growth of the school with more students and how that will create more issues with parents dropping off children, and also adversely affects parking and traffic. Charlie Main, building contractor, provided an update about the construction of the project and that the buildings have been removed, and the grading of the site is 80 percent complete. He also added that he will be there onsite to answer questions. David Brodie, SLO, expressed concern that the project feels rushed and that not enough time had been spent on archaeology. He noted that the vibrations from grading were affecting his home. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 3 Teri Stegman, middle school coordinator, addressed the need of the school for more classrooms, and that she feels that parking will not be an issue due to the fact students do not drive to school and that the teachers will walk from the main campus to the school. Linda Murray, Assistant Principal, expressed that the addition of adding classrooms is not on a whim, it is because there is a need for additional classrooms to accommodate their students, which they cannot provide on their campus. Rebecca Brown, teacher and alumni, appreciated the design of the project and believes it will enhance the character of the neighborhood. James Duenow, indicated the school is a business and should not receive special treatment. David Drake supported the architecture of the project, but requested that more trees be added to the west side of the project to create a buffer from the school classrooms. He also expressed concerns about lighting levels and how the property next door might be developed in the future. Allen Cooper asked for support from the school for a traffic management plan that is focused on street parking permits and more traffic calming features for the area, such as speed bumps. He recommended that the computer room be moved further away from the property more than 12 inches. He suggested the building could benefit from further articulation and agreed that recent grading had created noise and vibrations. Rachel Kovesdi clarified that the Catholic diocese owns the adjacent lot to the west, not Mission School, and that there are no plans from the school to develop that site. She stated that the style and massing of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. She spoke in support of a traffic management plan for the area and that the school would not oppose any traffic calming or residential parking restrictions implemented through traffic management plans. Mary Donnelli, teacher, commented that students will not be adding to noise levels in the neighborhood since they will either be in class or walking to class and that there would not be any outdoor activities such as recesses on the site. Duane Wall expressed he feels that this project will not significantly impact parking in the neighborhoods and that there is a need for the school to grow. Michele Gordon shared her concerns about parking and pickup /drop -off issues. Mark Anderson commented on the architecture of the project and that pilasters on the east elevation do not do enough to add articulation. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 4 Ty Safreno asked for an explanation of the differences between the roles of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission in regard to the project. Kurt Friedman commented on Directional Item 5 with his concerns that the school is not communicating enough with the neighborhood and that by simply communicating better with the neighborhood would have resolved many issues before it was brought to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Pam Ricci clarified the role of the Architectural Review Commission is to determine whether the planned site development is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. She pointed out that the applicant had obtained the required use permit in October which allowed the use of classrooms at the site, and has a vested right to move forward with their project. She reiterated that many of the neighbors' concerns related to existing issues with parking, traffic and drop -offs are not under the purview of the Architectural Review Commission. She responded to the question about the additional tree planting along the west side of the site clarifying that design and site planning issues are under the purview of the ARC. She also informed the Commission and the public that the staff has met with some of the neighbors in the area about setting up a traffic management plan to work to resolve any parking issues. Brian Leveille addressed some of the parking questions from the public, and that the requirement for a school according to San Luis Parking Standards is 2 parking spaces per classroom, plus one space for administration use, essentially 8 spaces. He noted that staff looked at the off -site parking at the Mission Prep location and was able to determine there was adequate space for those 8 parking spaces. Jim Duffy assured the Commission that the lighting is in compliance with City standards and that the project goes above and beyond the Night Sky Ordinance. He explained that light fixtures on the exterior emit 100% of their light downward. He also addressed concerns about the other property next door and that it is not owned by Old Mission School and that there are no plans to develop that site. Tina Ballantyne commented that the school does care about the neighbors and there have been efforts made to alleviate traffic in the area by staggering dismissal times for classes and hiring people to help direct school traffic. Commr. Curtis questioned staff about Condition 3 and what that exactly means. Brian Leveille replied that the condition addressed minor issues regarding operations, such as noise, lighting, buzzers, and mechanical equipment. Commr. Hopkins commented that he is in support of the project as presented and that it is in compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 5 Commr. Curtis commented that project is in compliance with the Community Design Guidelines and that a lot of the concerns from the public are unfortunately outside of the Architectural Review Commission's purview. He recommended that the computer room be moved further back from the property line if feasible. Commr. Palazzo motioned to approve the project on a condition with additional landscaping. Commr. Ehdaie added to condition regarding landscaping and seconded the motion to approve the project. Commr. Wynn added that he was disappointed that many of the neighbors' issues had not been brought out with the use permit and were out of the Architectural Review Commission's purview. He added that the 12 -inch offset of the computer room may seem minor, but in conjunction with the 2 -foot reduction in height does help to break up the scale of the wall. Commr. Hopkins supported the addition of landscaping as a buffer. On motion by Commr. Palazzo, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the project design as recommended with the following modification to conditions (6:0): Amend Condition 9 to add a sentence at the end of the condition reading: "Additional screening planting such as Cypress trees shall be planted along the west property line to provide for privacy of neighbors." AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Palazzo, Curtis, Hopkins, Wynn, McCovey -Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: 1 Position Vacant The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Michelle motioned for a small break at 6:35 to reconvene at 6:45. 2. 1241 Laurel Lane. ARC 156 -13; Conceptual architectural review of a mixed -use project; C -N zone; Laurel Lane Investments, LLC, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain, with 10 directional items. Commr. Curtis asked the staff if there is a retaining wall proposed at the slope of the site. Brian Leveille responded that there is a retaining wall and that one of the conditions asks for a full plan of the retaining wall as well as sectional views of the wall through the project. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 6 Commr. Ehdaie asked staff about the height of the wall. Brian Leveille replied that the height of the wall is undetermined at this time. Commr. Hopkins asked staff if the liquor store is going to be remodeled. Brian Leveille answered that it is proposed to remain as is. Ernie Kim, project architect, acknowledged the importance of the center to the neighborhood and explained that the primary purpose of the conceptual review is to obtain early feedback from the Commission on the project. He clarified that the liquor store would be refaced. He added that a three -story volume was necessary and that buildings will be further articulated. He agreed that all of the information for final approval would be provided and that he wanted to include outdoor seating in revised plans. Commr. Curtis questioned about the land use program for the project and if there are any variations with the types and sizes of apartments and townhomes. Ernie Kim responded that smaller residential units were planned over the commercial spaces. Commr. Ehdaie questioned the location of the driveways in respect to residential and commercial uses. Ernie Kim replied that the existing driveways will be used for both the residential and commercial uses. Commr. Ehdaie asked about the open space in the middle and if there is any other designated spaces for open space that the residents can use. Ernie Kim replied that the City standards require a certain amount of open space and that open space will be provided between and around the units. Commr. Ehdaie asked about unit parking. Ernie Kim replied that every unit has a 2 -car garage and every 5 units have a guest parking. Commr. Curtis asked about the subdivision of the project and if each unit will be sold separately. Christi Fry, civil engineer, responded that, yes, the project is proposed for each unit to be sold as individual condominiums. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 7 Commr. Curtis commented on the plans that show the grades of the buildings and if they were the actual grades. Ms. Fry responded that they are the actual grades. Commr. Wynn asked a question about the vegetative swale and if it was separate from the backyards of the units or if they were shared space. Christi Fry replied that the swales would be located outside of the residential yards. Commr. Palazzo asked about how the siting of the commercial buildings within the project was selected. Ernie Kim responded that the commercial buildings are oriented as close to Laurel Lane as possible and that the parking is located internally. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Louise Justice asked about the setback of the buildings along Laurel Lane, noting her concern for properly maintaining the bus stop. She also expressed concerns that the parking for the mix of commercial and residential uses may not be sufficient. She shared that she would like to see the Mexican restaurant preserved as well as the existing deli. She noted that dust control during the construction phases of the project was important due to the elderly in the area and potential health risks. She recommended that the project incorporate affordable housing. Henry Friesen expressed concerns with the height of the buildings and that they might be taking away from the quality of the neighborhood by obstructing views. Elizabeth Thyne asked about affordable housing and expressed concerns about the height and that it is a very serious issue. She stated that the designs of the buildings don't seem to carry any characteristics from the neighborhood. Lynda Holloway shared concerns about creek impacts and the height of the project affecting views. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Brian Leveille clarified that the minimum street yard setback in the Neighborhood - Commercial zone is 10 feet and the project meets the requirement. He noted that Public Works will take a closer look at any potential conflicts with the bus stop would take place during project review. He stated that the project is proposed to meet the affordability standards by paying the affordable housing in -lieu fee. He added that building code requirements would address dust control issues during construction phases of the project. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 8 Commr Palazzo commented that revised plans should respond to the overlook concerns of the neighbors and that the architecture of the project needs to find a theme and not be so generic. Commr Wynn stated that the walls of the commercial buildings appear too severe and are not pedestrian - friendly. He expressed concerns about the back of house items facing the street and the overall scale of the project not being in keeping with the neighborhood. Commr. Hopkins concurred with previous comments that the directional items are sufficient. He added that overlook issues and the towering buildings needed to be addressed in revised plans. Commr. Ehdaie also concurred with the comments of the other Commissioners and that her main concerns were creating a cohesive architectural theme for the project, selecting appropriate locations for the trash enclosures, and adding walkways for pedestrian access. Commr. Curtis agreed with the overall site planning approach (buildings close to the street with parking behind), however; he wanted to see better pedestrian access provided between the commercial buildings and continuing on to the residential buildings. He agreed with staff's recommended directional items and suggested that more common open space be provided in the project. He stated that height of the project facing the apartments below should be taken into account and that there may need to be stepping and other variations in building height to prevent a deep canyon effect. He added that the architectural design would benefit from additional wall offsets. Commr. McCovey -Good agreed with the staff's directional items, especially Item Number 9, and recommended that the applicant consider including entrances to the stores along the street elevation. Commr. Wynn recommended the project come back with a second conceptual review before finalizing plans and requesting final approval. On a motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Palazzo to continue the project to a date uncertain with minor wording changes to 2 of the 10 directional items included in the staff report and the following additional item (6;0): "Provide a plan for increased pedestrian access from Laurel Lane into the project." AYES: Commr. Ehdaie, Palazzo, Curtis, Hopkins, Wynn, McCovey -Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: 1 Position Vacant The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. ARC Minutes January 6, 2014 Page 9 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. Next ARC meeting is one week from tonight. Commission: Vice -Chair Wynn suggested that the City Attorney attend an upcoming meeting to discuss the Brown Act and conflict of interest issues that affect the ARC. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Kyle Bell Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on February 3, 2014. Cori Ryan Supervising Administrative Assistant