Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2016 ARC Draft Minutes of 10-19-2015DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 19, 2015 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioners Ken Curtis and Allen Root Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim-Community Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Consulting Planner Dave Watson, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was modified to move Item 2 (224 Tank Farm Road) into the Item 1 position. MINUTES There were no minutes presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take action on the Use Permit application associated with this project. On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Nemcik, to continue to a future Architectural Review Commission Meeting. AYES: Commissioners Andreen, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn NOES: None RECUSED: None Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 2 ABSENT: Commissioners Curtis and Root. The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual design review of a proposed hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two story units, up to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant. Chair Wynn and Commissioner Soll recused from this item due to conflict of interests and left the conference room at 5:05 p.m. Community Development Director Codron summarized the purpose of a Conceptual Review, noting that in these cases applicants seek feedback before the project is presented for approval and for public notification; explained that due to the complexity of the project, the format is altered, thus allowing applicants the opportunity to present before providing staff with a framework for the conversation. The Applicant provided an overview and brief history of the project; stated the project met ordinance requirements, noting the improvements to the current design. The applicant answered Commission’s questions regarding the patio and picnic areas for the RV parking, indicating that each RV space would have its own picnic area, and would have access to all of the Motel amenities. In response to Commissioner Nemcik, the Applicant noted the surface on the street would be made of pavers and asphalt. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a quick overview of the project site, recommending that the commission formulate discussions regarding the RV Park creek buffering; stated that the City’s Natural Resource Manager recommended a wooden rail fence with signs to address potential trespassing into the riparian area; suggested a discussion on the Motel bungalow units, stating that the decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. Vice-Chair Ehdaie acknowledged correspondence received by Bob Lucas; reviewed the contents of an email from Commissioner Root, expressing his support for the project; and noting that the project meets Ordinance 1130 and setback requirements. In response to Commissioner Nemcik, Community Development Director Codron, stated the fence would be a split-rail fence, which is the City standard design for creek corridors. Commissioner Andreen, asked staff for interpretation on the meaning of the word “should” as opposed to “shall” in City Ordinance 1130. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 3 Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the language in question is generally designed to provide flexibility. Community Development Director Codron expounded on the previous comment, noting the use of the word “should” is subject to intent; explained the intent in this case is to preserve the residential feel of the surrounding area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, regarding the reason for the rail fence as opposed to a wall fence that could potentially help mitigate noise and light issues, the Applicant stated that the Planning commission was pleased with the rail fence noting that a solid wall was not needed due to distance, thick riparian area and the fact that RV guests will not be using the space as a recreational area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, the Applicant stated the studies submitted between 2003 and 2005, including a noise study, remain current; declared that a masonry wall would be a mistake in this area and would not be needed due to the kind of activities that would take place in the RV area, noting that noise from the highway would be greater than the noise generated in the RV area. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, affirmed his support for this project from a neighbor’s perspective; opined the project represents a low intensity type of recreation appropriate for this particular property, noting that he does not anticipate an excessive amount of noise; expressed his belief that the project would be an enhancement to the city. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Andreen expressed appreciation for Mr. Garth’s perspective; voiced concerns over the use of the word “should” in section 7 of Ordinance 1130; acknowledged the general consensus that RV users are typically a respectful group; opined that she does not believe this would be a major noise generator; asserted interest in seeing noise studies; opined that this project would be appropriate and attractive, posing no major concern with regard to the open spacing of the creek or fencing choices; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. Commissioner Nemcik noted that the design is elegant and beautiful; stated the applicants are heading in the right direction and have been cautious in addressing all of the points in Ordinance 1130; opined that the split rail fence would be appropriate; indicated support for the project. Vice-Chair Ehdaie stated this project would add value to the community; expressed satisfaction with the way ordinance 1130 was addressed; asserted interest in reviewing Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 4 the noise study; noted no concerns with the patio spacing; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review. No specific directional items were provided from the ARC. Chair Wynn and Comm. Soll rejoined the meeting room at 5:50 p.m. 3. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of the “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land; Robbins/Reed, applicant. Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Design Group, provided an update on the changes made to the project since the previous conceptual hearing and addressed previous directional items; noted adding a round-a-about which created changes in circulation and connectivity. The applicant pointed out changes in geometry, including additional retaining walls, based on recommendations from the Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill; stated the project meets pedestrian connectivity based on the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; provided a new grading plan to help balance the site and proposed implementing innovative parking solutions such as decupling the garages from the properties and selling the garages separately; suggested having a shared “fun car” that could be made available for rent as well as providing plenty of long and short-term bike storage; noted ample parking in the single-family residential area as well as on the streets near Orcutt Road; stated the neighborhood would not be impacted by parking issues. In response to Commissioner Andreen, the applicant stated the pool would not be accessible to the single-family dwellings due to costly ADA requirements and would only be used by the multi-family residents. In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiries regarding parking, the applicants noted they would have no problem allocating some of the parking spaces in the PG&E easement area to multi-family parking, and would have no issues for making the shared fun car or truck available to all residents. In response to Commissioner Wynn’s inquiry, the applicants confirmed storage requirements would be met notwithstanding the decupling concept and indicated there would be long-term bicycle parking all throughout the site. Applicants stated that they would like to receive feedback regarding parking, grading and architecture. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 5 City Consultant, Dave Watson, presented the staff report, reviewed improvements and changes to the site-plans, evaluated directional items from the previous conceptual review, and went over additional topographic information. Pointed out competing policies relative to grading in the setback areas; advised the commission to establish a minimum number of parking spaces and to discuss pedestrian linkage; noted that staff agrees with mixing land usage but suggested common areas should stand-alone; expressed support for the design styles and for positioning the garages in the rear areas; suggested focusing the conversation to the directional items from the previous conceptual review; noted that the information gathered from this review would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Andreen, Natural Resource Manager, Bob Hill, stated that he visited the site on two occasions, in two different seasons; noted that the riparian area was highly denuded; attested to the lack of strong concerns for the removal of what is on site; explained that a 2 to 1 slope is steeper, indicating that it could be made stable and has the potential for ample restoration; believes a more robust riparian canopy could be achieved; confirmed the project is fully compliant with the creek setback regulations as well as the setbacks specified for both creeks and wetlands in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; explained that the community design guidelines have language about grading in setbacks which would be used as the policy in this case; expressed not having concerns with erosion, asserting that the site wou ld have a water erosion control plan which would be monitored by the water board. In response to inquiry by Vice -Chair Ehdaie, Natural Resource Manager Hill indicated there are no proposed bridges on the creek. Community Development Director Codron, noted that the specific site policy does not require additional discussions for bridges; asserted the applicant is working with staff to develop a two-part parking reduction strategy with a proposal that could be effective; noted confidence in the process. In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry, Community Development Director Codron, stated the City is responsible for maintaining the streets. Civil Enginner Hal Hannula provided an overview of the PG&E easement area; opined that fewer pavement and parallel parking spaces might be a better use of the area. Staff clarified that all perpendicular parking on A2 Street is additional and not a part of the parking requirement. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the plans indicate 26-feet back up space available for vehicles in the alleys between units. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Wynn acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant and Mr. Flores. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Community Development Director Codron responded to questions regarding decupling, stating it is not a new concept but a widely recognized way for dealing with the need for single-occupancy parking; noted that the Tolosa Ranch Apartments offer parking separately; stated that analysis will be done to see how this would impact parking. Chair Wynn stated that the idea of decupling is good, but noted concerns about its sustainability; suggested a need to review Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville’s input on the matter. Also voiced concerns with R-2 guest parking. Commissioner Nemcik stated the rationale items for reducing parking are a good idea but does believe they would warrant a parking reduction; noted that even if people bike, they would most likely also own vehicles; voiced concerns regarding sufficient parking. In response to Chair Wynn, Consultant Watson clarified that in the R-4 zone the applicants fall seventeen percent below the parking requirements. Commissioner Andreen expressed apprehension over the lack of parking; opined that people in California rely on their cars and do not change quickly; stated the gap is too far from the normal requirements. In response to Commissioner Soll, Consultant Watson, clarified that the proposal has 160 spaces of the 194 space requirement; suggested a viable solution would be to set a threshold and let the applicants work with Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville and staff to develop a plan. Vice-Chair Edhaie concurred with Commissioners Nemcik and Andreen, voicing concerns over the reduced parking; noted being in favor of setting a threshold and allowing the applicant time to work through the issues. Commissioner Andreen stated that a 17 percent is not an acceptable reduction. Consultant Watson suggested reducing to a ten percent threshold, noting that staff can include contingency plans that would allow for more parking to be created to satisfy demand. Community Development Director Codron clarified that the additional parking reduction is allowed within the zoning regulations. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 7 The Applicant clarified that they are asking for a seven percent reduction on a project that requires 200 spaces. Chair Wynn expressed support for developing a contingency plan built into the parking plan. The Commission, having established concerns over parking, agreed to have the applicant work with staff and Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville to come up with a solution that could incorporate a contingency plan. Chair Wynn shared concerns over the creek channel looking manufactured; suggested adding bumps and pockets to add more naturalness; noted concerns with bicyclists’ ability to ride up the steep areas. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni, acknowledged concerns and constraints due to grading; noted that staff is not against grading; stated that the goal was to make the commission aware of those constraints. Chair Wynn, expressed satisfaction with the grading; acknowledged the positive direction of the project; requested to see the overall stepping of the site. During the course of discussion, the Commission concluded there is connectivity; suggested adding more pathways to Orcutt Road. The applicant provided an overview of the new architectural styles, noting the addition of a craftsman style house for which Chair Wynn and Commissioner Andreen voiced support. In response to Commissioner Andreen, the applicant stated that the homeowners would have an option to choose from a set of colors to ensure an eclectic color palate in keeping with the San Luis Obispo style; noted that there will be trees in between the single family homes. The Applicant noted remaining concerns over parking; stated a commitment to working toward the City’s requirements; voiced misperception over lack of consistency in the requests made by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission with regard to number of parking spaces; expressed appreciation for Commission feedback. There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review with the following directional items: 1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 8 application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans, the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional items. 2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City checklists. 3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on- street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park with final design plans. 5. Explore pedestrian connectivity from the connection of Street A-4 and Street A- 3 to Orcutt Road (between the residential lots). 6. Explore alternatives to proposed grading along the creek (especially within the creek setback) to provide a more varied/naturally appearing slope bank. 7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174 parking spaces (21 guest parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces) required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be implemented with the final design. 8. In conjunction with Public Works review of the project, introduce extensions of the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC. 9. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 10. Provide 3D renderings to illustrate the proposed use of taller retaining walls (in particular: the tiered walls along Orcutt Road and the taller retaining walls associated with the condo structures). Include landscaping/screening proposals with these renderings. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 9 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a forecast of upcoming agenda items; noting an upcoming hearing on November 2, 2015 for 222 Tank Farm, and stated there will be a conceptual review on November 16, 2015 of the San Luis Ranch Project and an appeal of a guest house at 128 Chorro Street. 2. Commission: The Commission discussed the new format for conceptual review hearings. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary