HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2016 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, August 1, 2016
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the
Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission
that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item
presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for formal discussion.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meetings of June 6 and June 20, 2016
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If
you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
1. 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Conceptual architectural review and
preliminary feedback for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the
Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a 33-unit multi-family
residential project. No final action is being requested; R-4 zone; LR Development Group,
applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of August 1, 2016 Page 2
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
APPEALS
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an
appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development
Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an
appeal is $281 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual architectural review and preliminary feedback for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a 33-unit multi-family residential project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 71 Palomar BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2193-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation regarding the proposed project and continue the
project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans
submitted for final approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant LR Development Group
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Historic Status Master List
Submittal Date 10/16/2015
Complete Date 5/20/2016
Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential)
General Plan High Density Residential
Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres)
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pending
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
The applicant has submitted plans for conceptual review of a project located at 71 Palomar. The
proposed project includes the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List
Historic Sandford House and the construction of a 33-unit multi-family residential project. The
multi-family units include five, 2-story structures and a 4-story structure built into the hill with five
studios, 16 two-bedroom, and 12 three-bedroom apartments. The project also includes 63 parking
spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the north apartment
building, accessed from Palomar Avenue.
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Item Number: 1
ARC1 - 1
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 2
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project on March 28, 2016 and
continued the project with the following direction (Attachment 3, Directional Letter):
1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to
which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-
way and the new development.
2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new
development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the
historic residence.
a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as
fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight
the historic elements of the Sandford House.
On June 27, 2016 a revised project proposal was reviewed and found consistent with the City’s
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards (Attachment 4,
Resolution CHC-1009-16). The resolution provided the following recommendations to ARC:
1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new
development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give
great consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees.
2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and
specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials,
windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project
adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure.
3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on
Buildings A and B.
Staff has conducted an evaluation of the conceptual project (Section 3.0) and provided discussion
items (Section 4.0) for consideration and discussion by the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) with the purpose of providing feedback to the applicant prior to finalizing plans and
returning for final approval.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The purpose of conceptual review before the ARC is to offer feedback to the applicant as to whether
the project’s design is headed in the right direction before plans come forward for final review. The
ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines, General Plan and applicable City standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located at the corner of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive just south of
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 3
Foothill Boulevard and west of Broad Street within the R-4 (High Density Residential) zone
(see Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The project site is 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) and
contains the Master List Historic Sandford House as well as a secondary residential building,
and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport. The majority of the site is undeveloped with open
space and mature trees present throughout the site. The site is accessed by two driveways along
Luneta Drive and a pedestrian access from Palomar Avenue. The proposed site is bounded to
the north, east and west by R-4 residential developments and single family, R-1 units to the
south.
Site Information/Setting
Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres)
Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House
Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4)
Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 277 ft.
Slope: ~13%
Current Access From Luneta Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential)
South: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
2.2 Project Description
The project proposes the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List
Sandford house as part of a 33-unit multi-family residential project (Attachment 2, Project
Plans). The project includes:
• Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
• Removal of the non-historic accessory buildings (garage, carport and the secondary
residential building);
• Reposition the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current location;
• Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
• Construction of six residential structures:
o five 2-story structures and a 4-story structure built into the hill;
o 33 residential units (five studios, 16 two-bedroom, and 12 three-bedroom
apartments).
• Parking: 63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage
beneath the north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
• The project also includes road improvements to Luneta Drive that entail opening up a
currently closed road to allow two-way traffic and adding raised medians. The City
Council will consider authorizing an amendment to the General Plan on September 6,
2016 regarding completion of Luneta Drive as shown in the Circulation Element. As the
project is currently designed, the site does not propose any driveway access along
Luneta Drive.
3.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
Staff has used the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Zoning Regulations and the General Plan
to review the proposed project and created a set of discussion items for the ARC. The following
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 4
highlights key elements of the site and building design that the ARC should discuss and provide
direction to staff and the applicant.
ARC Discussion Items: The proposed project is located within a High Density Residential (R-4)
zone adjacent to a Single-family Residential (R-1) zone and is subject to the Residential Design
Guidelines for Multi-family and Clustered Housing Design within the CDG (Chapter 5, Section
5.4).
1. Scale and Massing. The CDG states that because multi-family projects are usually taller
than one story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects
should be considered within the context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height
may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped-
down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually
dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures,
and large single structures should be avoided.1 The proposed massing and design appears
to be in general compliance with the following areas of the Community Design Guidelines
(CDG) because:
a. The residential units are broken up into groups of structures;
b. Portions of the upper stories are stepped back and the structures range in height from
28.6 feet to 35 feet from the average natural grade;
c. The project complies with all development standards required for an R-4 lot.
The CHC reviewed the project on June 27, 2016 and encouraged the ARC to evaluate
further reduction in scale and massing of the project to ensure that new development does
not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House.
ARC Discussion Item #1: The ARC should discuss if the proposed scale and massing is
generally compatible with the Historic Sandford House, compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and compliant with Residential Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Housing
Design and the CHC’s direction.
2. Materials and Architectural Elements. The CDG state a structure with three or more
attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent
scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as
balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality
of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a
building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the
structure's edge. Structures (including garages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length
are discouraged.2
The architecture of the project reflects an agrarian style with gabled roofs that are similar to
the Sandford House and provides a more authentic architectural form as opposed to a flat
roof design. Features of the design include windows with divided lights and ventilation
louvers which are found on the historic house. The project also includes the use of smooth
1 CDG: Chapter 5, Section 5.4.C(2): Multi-family project Architecture; Scale. 2 CDG: Chapter 5, Section 5.4.C(1): Multi-family project Architecture, Façade and roof articulation.
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 5
stucco, cement fiber horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, and smooth paneling.
The smooth panel horizontal element between window fenestrations was identified as not
appearing consistent with the overall project design or the Sandford House. CHC
recommended the ARC evaluate this architectural feature and provide feedback on a more a
compatible architectural element.
ARC Discussion Item #2: The applicant has provided renderings and elevations that show
various materials and architectural features. The ARC should discuss the appropriateness of
the proposed materials and architectural elements and if they are generally consistent with
the Community Design Guidelines for Multi-family Housing Design and compatible with
the Historic Sandford House.
3. Tree Removal and Landscaping. The CDG does not give specific guidelines for
landscaping within multi-family or infill development sites. However landscaping plays an
important role in how the project is viewed from the street, how the project integrates with
adjacent properties, how the site may be utilized by the residents of the project, and the
preservation of privacy.3
The applicant is proposing to remove 45 trees on the site, retain 4 trees and replant 37 new
trees. The final project submittal will have the City Arborist’s recommendation and a full
analysis of the tree removal as a part of the Environmental Initial Study, Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Municipal Code states that the City values trees as an important part of the
natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever
possible and feasible. The Code further provides specific guidelines for development
projects to request tree removals.4
The landscape plan shows that a majority of the new trees will be planted along Luneta
Drive and the western property line (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). Additionally
the landscape plan includes outdoor living areas with the inclusion of patios and courtyards
which are encouraged by the CDG.5
ARC Discussion Item #3: The ARC should generally discuss the proposed tree removals and
if the proposed landscape plan is generally supportable, compatible with the project and
consistent with the CDG and the General Plan and if there are other elements the landscape
plan should include.
4.0 DIRECTIONAL ITEMS
Staff recommends the ARC discuss and provide feedback about:
1. Scale and Massing. The appropriateness of the general scale and massing of the project at
3 General Plan, Land Use Element 2.3.11. Residential Project Objectives: Residential projects should provide (A)
Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; (B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and
prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine, and (D) pleasant views from and toward the project. 4 Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090 Tree Removal: (A) Policy and (E) Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 5 CDG: Chapter 5, Section 5.3.D: Infill Development, Outdoor living areas.
ARC1 - 5
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 6
the subject site and adjacent to the Historic Sandford House.
2. Materials and Architectural Elements Design. The appropriateness of the proposed
materials and architectural elements of the proposed project.
3. Landscaping. The appropriateness of the proposed landscape plan.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the ARC continue the project to a date uncertain. Please note that the ARC’s
conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual information and plans provided by
the applicant. Upon 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.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans
3. Directional Letter (March 28, 2016)
4. Resolution CHC-1009-16 (June 27, 2016)
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
ARC1 - 6
R-1
R-1
R-4
C-C
R-1 R-4-PD
R-4-PD
R-1-PD
R-1
R-4
R-4
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-2
R-4-PD
R-1
R-1
C/OS-20
C-C-SFR-1
RAMONA
FOOTHILL
SERRANO
LUNETA
VE
R
D
E
PA
L
O
M
A
R
B
R
E
S
S
I
PE
N
M
A
N
EL
M
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2193-201571 PALOMAR AVENUE ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 7
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 8
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 9
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 10
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 11
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 12
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 13
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 19
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 21
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 22
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 23
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 24
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 25
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 26
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 27
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 28
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 29
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 30
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 31
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 32
'
'
W
W
W
W
'
'
A
s
h
l
e
y
&
V
a
n
c
e
G
,
C
1
4
1
3
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
5
-
0
0
1
0
(
3
2
3
)
7
4
4
-
0
0
1
0
w
w
w
.
a
s
h
l
e
y
v
a
n
c
e
.
c
o
m
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
0
20
2
0
4
0
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
E
E
T
N
26
4
.
4
F
F
-
P
O
D
I
U
M
D
E
C
K
25
3
.
0
'
F
F
-
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
D
E
C
K
24
4
.
0
'
F
F
-
1
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
D
E
C
K
26
4
.
2
F
S
26
8
.
5
F
F
26
7
.
3
F
G
26
7
.
8
F
G
26
4
.
3
F
S
PALOMA
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
(2
5
8
.
7
E
G
)
(2
5
3
.
0
E
G
)
(2
4
4
.
4
E
G
)
51
,
9
0
0
S
F
A
R
E
A
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
:
16
,
0
0
0
C
Y
C
U
T
50
C
Y
F
I
L
L
20
'
M
A
X
C
U
T
5'
M
A
X
F
I
L
L
LI
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
T
I
E
R
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
U
T
I
L
I
Z
E
S
:
x
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
x
DI
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
x
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
S
x
OP
E
N
C
E
L
L
B
L
O
C
K
P
A
V
I
N
G
27
3
.
1
T
W
/
F
S
26
4
.
3
T
W
(2
6
4
.
3
E
G
)
26
4
.
3
T
W
(2
5
8
.
6
E
G
)
26
4
.
2
T
W
SI
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
LI
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
O
D
I
U
M
D
E
C
K
/
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
R
O
O
F
RE
M
O
V
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
5
'
M
A
X
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
NO
T
U
S
E
D
NO
T
U
S
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
O
W
E
R
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
A
C
D
I
K
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
M
E
D
I
A
N
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
A
I
N
I
N
L
E
T
.
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
C
3
.
1
F
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
BI
O
-
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
A
I
N
G
A
R
D
E
N
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
U
N
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
3
4
1
0
.
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
2
1
1
0
,
2
1
2
0
A
N
D
2
1
3
0
.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
R
O
P
I
N
L
E
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
20
'
W
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
R
A
M
P
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
2
1
1
0
A
N
D
2
1
2
0
.
LI
M
I
T
S
O
F
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
R
A
M
P
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
S
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
P
A
D
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
9
10
12
12
12
12
12
6'
S/
W
12
'
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
12
'
ME
D
I
A
N
12
'
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
6'
EX
I
S
T
S/
W
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
A
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
4
'
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
1"
=
4
'
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
13
(2
7
2
.
3
T
C
)
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
(2
7
4
.
3
T
C
)
(2
7
3
.
7
T
C
)
27
1
.
6
T
C
27
0
.
5
T
C
(2
7
1
.
2
T
C
)
26
7
.
6
T
C
(2
6
8
.
3
T
C
)
(2
6
4
.
9
T
C
)
(2
6
3
.
3
T
C
)
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
1
.
7
B
S
W
25
0
.
3
B
S
W
24
8
.
5
B
S
W
24
7
.
1
B
S
W
24
6
.
2
F
S
@
D
W
Y
24
6
.
2
F
S
@
D
W
Y
25
3
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
25
3
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
6
.
0
%
1
3
.
8
%
12
.
1
%
4.8
%
19
19
18.00'
24
4
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
24
4
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
20
(
5
.
3
%
)
(
6
.
5
%
)
3
.
5
%
3
.
5
%
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
'
M
A
X
RE
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
(C
U
T
W
A
L
L
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
5
'
M
A
X
RE
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
(F
I
L
L
W
A
L
L
)
2'
SA
W
C
U
T
(V
A
R
I
E
S
)
(V
A
R
I
E
S
)
VA
R
I
E
S
3
.
5
%
21
22
27
0
.
9
F
S
26
8
.
0
F
F
26
8
.
0
F
F
26
8
.
5
F
F
27
1
.
0
F
F
26
4
.
8
F
G
26
4
.
3
F
G
26
7
.
8
F
G
26
7
.
9
F
G
11
11
11
1111
11
11
11
11
11
11
27
0
.
9
F
S
26
8
.
4
F
S
26
6
.
9
F
G
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
D
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
B
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
G
1 ~
26
6
.
5
F
G
26
4
.
3
F
G
26
4
.
0
F
S
26
5
.
4
F
G
26
9
.
5
F
S
26
7
.
8
F
S
26
8
.
8
F
S
26
7
.
5
F
S
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 33
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 34
March 31, 2016 (Sent via Email)
LR Development Group
400 Continental Blvd
Suite: 6th floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Thom Jess
Arris Studio Architects
1306 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue): Review of proposed rehabilitation,
adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House
property as part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project, and review of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Dear Mr. Jess:
On March 28, 2016, the CHC met to review the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and
repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 41-unit multi-
family residential project, and review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact. The CHC passed a motion to continue the project to a date uncertain with the following
direction:
1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the
extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house
and the right-of-way and the new development.
2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new
development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence
of the historic residence.
a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as
fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that
highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House.
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 35
ARCH-2193-2016 – CHC Direction
March 31, 2016
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 781-7574.
Sincerely,
Rachel Cohen
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rcohen@slocity.org
T 805.781.7574
slocity.org
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 36
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 37
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 38
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 39
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
DATE: July 21, 2016
FROM: Lee Price, Interim City Clerk
TO: Architectural Review Commission
SUBJECT: Correction to Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 6, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the corrected minutes of June 6, 2016
DISCUSSION
It has come to our attention that there is an error in the June 6, 2016 Architectural Review
Commission meeting minutes, which were approved on July 11, 2016. The error relates to the
unintentional omission of the consideration of minutes section. The correction to the minutes
reads as follows:
“CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
NEMCIK, CARRIED 6:0:1, to approve the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission
meeting of April 18, 2016.”
No other modifications to the minutes are recommended. By approving the corrections, the
official minutes will be amended to reflect the changes outlined above.
Attachments:
06-06-2016 Amended ARC Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Minutes
Monday, June 6, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission was called to
order on Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:05 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chairperson Wynn.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Curtis, Nemcik, Root, Soll, Vice- Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn
ABSENT: Commissioner Andreen
STAFF: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson; Associate Planner
Rachel Cohen; Assistant Planner Januar Saptono; and Recording Secretary
Monique Lomeli
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
NEMCIK, CARRIED 6:0:1, to approve the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission
meeting of April 18, 2016.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Citywide. ARCH-2408-2015; Review of City Wayfinding Signs: Downtown Orientation
Map Kiosks and a new City Hall Information Center & Wayfinding Kiosk, including a
categorical exemption from environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented the staff report and recommendations.
Applicant Representatives Pierre Rademaker and Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group,
narrated a PowerPoint presentation of the project and responded to Commission questions
with regard to lighting, location of individual signs, design details, sign content, and height.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Commission discussion ensued regarding the wayfinding sign designed for City Hall,
considering the suitability of the proposed design in comparison to a more traditional
appearance to support the intended content of the sign and complement the exterior design
of City Hall.
The Commission discussed concerns with height of signage, commenting that the proposed
9 ft. height is inappropriate for the location; inquired whether or not height could be reduced
without compromising content.
Applicant Representative Rudd confirmed that the design could be modified to
accommodate the preferred maximum height of 8 ft.
Discussion ensued with regard to sign placement to preserve the viewshed of pedestrians
and the surrounding buildings.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SOLL, to adopt the City Wayfinding Signs program subject to additional conditions:
1) The colors of the City Hall Wayfinding Kiosk shall match the colors of City Hall.
2) The map and text of the City Hall Wayfinding Kiosk shall clearly communicate specific
locations in the most user friendly manner possible.
3) The Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks shall be located where they do not impact
viewsheds in the downtown including historic and significant architectural features as
well as features to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
Public Works Director.
4) The Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks shall be no taller than 8 feet to the top of the “i.”
5) The Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks shall be illuminated at the lowest levels needed
to be usable at night.
Commissioner Curtis stated that he would not be voting to approve because of inappropriate
colors, materials, and design of the City Hall Wayfinding Sign, preferring the sleeker, more
modern style of the other signs.
Motion passed 5:1:1 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Nemcik, Ehdaie, Root, Soll, Wynn
NOES: Commissioner Curtis
ABSENT: Commissioner Andreen
Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 2
2. 774 Caudill Street, ARCH-2628-2016; Review of a new four-story mixed-use project,
including ground floor commercial/retail space and 36 residential units. The project is
requesting to construct a 47.5-foot tall structure where 40 feet is normally allowed and
includes a 3% mixed-use parking reduction and tandem parking, with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; Caudill Street Partners, applicant. (Kyle Bell)
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SOLL, to continue item to June 20, 2016.
Motion passed on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Commissioners Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Andreen
3. 135 Ferrini Road. ARCH-2451-2015; Review of five new multi-family dwelling units,
with a categorical exemption from environmental review; R-4 zone; Zac Missler, applicant
(Januar Saptono)
Assistant Planner Saptono gave a brief overview of the project.
Chair Wynn acknowledged receipt of agenda correspondence and opened the forum to
questions for staff.
Staff responded to Commission inquiries, indicating that a traffic study was considered and
found to be unnecessary due to the unchanged zoning of the property and the fact that the
project would not exceed density; stated that the street tree replacement would be per City
ordinance and tree removal would be within the purview of the Commission as part of the
development review.
In response to further inquiries by the Commission, Staff stated that the applicant did
consider and prepare for trash removal.
Commission directed staff to address the need for more space around the accessible stall and
side-loading area. In response to the Commission’s direction, Staff stated willingness to add
a condition for meeting City parking standards.
In response to additional Commission inquiries, Staff stated that the applicant did not
provide a shadow study for this project and explained the calculation of parking spaces.
In response to Commission comments regarding massing and concerns pertaining to
questionable bedroom dimensions, Deputy Director Davidson clarified that the project meets
infill exemption criteria and does not require an environmental review.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 3
Applicant Representative Truitt Vance briefly presented comments on the project and
addressed Commission comments, stating that no design exceptions were needed or
requested; noted that the property was fully vetted and parking standards are being met;
addressed bedroom dimension concerns, stating they are the result of having to scale the
project down and also an attempt to preserve the desired courtyard design; requested
specific direction with regard to the bedroom dimensions; stated that the five-foot blanket
setback rule provides no way to get the vertical circulation needed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
San Luis Obispo residents Odile Ayral, Caixing Gu, and Sandra Rowley voiced concerns
over increased traffic, negative effect on parking, privacy issues due to the proposed
massing being larger than the average building in the neighborhood, and possibility of
illegal conversion of dens to create additional bedrooms.
---End of Public Comments---
Commission discussion and feedback to Staff followed, specifically addressing the color
palette, height, and massing concerns.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR EHDAIE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SOLL, the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain, with
direction to the applicant 1) reduce massing, primarily focusing on bedroom size
2) simplify articulation including roof forms/planes and soften color palette, and 3) address
parking conflict with building structural columns.
Motion passed on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Commissioners Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Andreen
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson presented the agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Wynn adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: JULY 11, 2016
Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 4
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, June 20, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
June 20, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Greg Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan
Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Patricia Andreen
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Consultant Planner
Shawna Scott, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and
Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
AMENDMENT: Page 2, insert new paragraph appropriately situated below “–-End of Public
Comments---to read: “Commissioner Curtis expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts at Los
Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, including cumulative impacts; expressed concerns
regarding visual impacts of the project on views of the mountains both to the West and to the
North from Highway 101; and expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of water supply in the
long-term, given drought conditions.”
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, the ARC Minutes of May 2, 2016 were approved as amended on the
following 5:0:1:1 vote:
AYES: Nemcik, Root, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Curtis
ABSENT: Andreen
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1301 Calle Joaquin. ARCH-1098-2015; Continued review of a four-story, 114-unit
extended stay hotel, associated hotel amenities, and Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review; C-T-SF zone; Intermountain Management, LLC, applicant.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Consultant Scott who presented re-introductory
overview of hotel project and discussed Applicant’s response to three (3) directional
items from ARC Hearing of May 2nd, 2016.
Deputy Director Davidson informed that City Council approved 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan at their most recent Hearing.
Chair Wynn proposed that discussion on Condition #11 be held for final consideration
at end of Commission Comment period.
Project Architect Philip L. Stewart provided process-to-date information and additional
explanation supplementing his response letter of May 17th. Tim Walters, Principal of
RRM Design Group, broadened the commentary in discussing the constrained nature
of the site from a floodplain and stormwater standpoint.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, representing Board of Central Coast Grown (CCG), voiced
approval of Staff’s recommendation for project except for the section regarding the project not
returning to ARC; voiced that Commission has been very understanding of onsite conditions and
agricultural constraints of the area.
Victor Montgomery, San Luis Obispo, provided historical perspective of remaining four lots of
property of which half was dedicated to open space and on which City Farm resides; shared that
project’s process began with adoption of LUCE that identified space as available for hotel use
and, because it complies with regulations without exceptions, should be approved.
Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, informed that CCG was not noticed about this project until
shortly before October 5th ARC Hearing, so previous history of project is not relevant to CCG
concerns.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Consultant Scott provided background on the creation of
the four lots and the City Council’s eventual adoption of land use designation change to C-T.
Consultant Scott verified for Commissioner Root that the Code height-restriction is 45-feet;
verified for Vice-Chair Ehdaie that the project as currently proposed complies with zoning
ordinances and is consistent with General Plan land use designation.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 2
Chair Wynn requested and received commentary and discussion on each of the Directional Items
responded to by Applicant, beginning with the window trim-bands and the color palette before
placing more emphasis on the height and massing issue.
Commissioner Nemcik re-stated her previous opinion that architect had made changes that ARC
requested in May and that the altered project was compatible in scale with proximate existing
structures.
Commissioner Curtis reiterated his objections to project’s height based on viewshed obstructions
and voiced a litany of further objections, including the Applicant’s once again not responding to
Commission’s majority direction. Commissioner Soll pointed out that the reduction of height
request and the Applicant’s continued non-compliance has recurred in each of the four ARC
Hearings on this project.
Commissioner Root indicated project was at aesthetic disadvantage, being first to arrive to area;
commented favorably on the architect’s continued dedication to modifying its articulation;
concurred with Commissioner Curtis on the traffic and water issues warranting an Environmental
Impact Report.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie voiced support for project in its consistency with Community Design
Guidelines and its addition of community value.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR WYNN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROOT,
the Commission approved the Item with adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
with Amendment to strike Condition #11, which had stated “Prior to issuance of construction
permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing an overall reduction in height for
review and approval by the City Community Development Director. The revised plans shall
show: a.) No more than three stories; b.) Maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 35
feet above existing grade; c.) Vertical stepping shall be incorporated into the plans to provide
visual articulation; and d.) Horizontal setbacks along the third floor shall be provided to
minimize massing”, on the following 4:2:0:1 roll call vote:
AYES: Wynn, Root, Nemcik, Ehdaie
NOES: Curtis, Soll
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andreen
774 Caudill Street. ARCH-2628-2016; Review of a new four-story mixed-use project
including ground floor commercial/retail space, and 36 residential units. The project is
requesting to construct a 47.5 foot tall structure where 40 feet is normally allowed and
includes a 3% mixed-use parking reduction and tandem parking, with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; C-S-SF zone, Caudill Street Partners,
applicant.
Assistant Planner Bell provided Staff Presentation of mixed-use project review,
specifically related to building’s design and its consistency with the South Broad Street
Area Plan.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 3
In response to Commissioner Curtis’ inquiry, Assistant Planner Bell indicated that
regulations do not identify a specific threshold percentage in either commercial or
residential for what constitutes a mixed-use project, but does allow for the discretion of
the reviewing Body to make determination.
Commissioners asked questions pertaining to parking reductions, dedicated parking,
and occupancy/tenancy.
Applicant George Garcia discussed the fact that after presenting smaller versions of
project over past few years, he has now achieved critical mass for it through
partnerships with smaller onsite building owners, with the hope of meeting objectives
of City Guidelines for affordable housing and infill development.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo, spoke in general favor for the continued increase in residential
uses in the South Broad Area; cautioned against providing extensive square footage to
commercial and retail uses.
Rusée Parvin, San Luis Obispo, requested that landscaping plans include installing
more appropriately sized large trees in 24” to 50” boxes instead of planting smaller
trees.
Dustin Pires, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for project as owner of business
adjacent to proposed site.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Soll voiced agreement with Public Commenter regarding the installation of larger
trees to balance out scale of project and stated that current direction of Tree Committee is for use
of larger boxes for new development. Commissioner Curtis voiced that larger trees sometimes
experience more difficulty becoming established. Chair Wynn shared that project has both
benefit of time and the fact that the neighborhood is going to grow around this project in a fairly
quick way.
Commissioner Curtis questioned whether Finding #12 regarding the 20% mixed-use parking
reduction was actually required. Applicant Garcia explained that a shared parking reduction
served as a proactive condition to allow for potential restaurant use and providing a future tenant
some flexibility. Deputy Director Davidson indicated that the Finding would be maintained in
Resolution but with altered language so as to state it in a more positive fashion.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 4
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SOLL, the Commission granted final approval of the Item with
direction to 1.) Amend final line in Condition #29 to read “The compensatory street
trees shall be 24” box or larger, and the applicant shall work with the City
Arborist to identify if a larger box is possible in order to compensate for the loss of
the existing tree canopy.” and 2.) Wordsmith Finding #12 to state it in a more
affirmative way; on the following 6:0:0:1 roll call vote:
AYES: Root, Soll, Nemcik, Curtis, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andreen
Chair Wynn called for a short recess.
2102 Broad Street. ARCH 2764-2016: Review of the modification of an approved addition to a
single-family residence (ARCMI 29-12) with a new single-family residence 39 feet tall and three
stories in height; CN zone; Samuel Clemons, applicant.
Assistant Planner Oetzell provided the Staff Report with an emphasis on the four (4) Directional
Items pertaining to the building height, materials and height of privacy walls, elimination of
metal siding and transitional nature of the entry area.
Commissioner Curtis inquired about adjacent parcel uses being predominantly commercial;
Assistant Planner Oetzell detailed residential uses in proximity; Chair Wynn pointed out future
site of tall apartment complex project across Santa Barbara Street; Deputy Director Davidson
indicated that any perceived secondary dwelling unit is not allowed for on-site since project is
proposed as single-family residence.
Applicant Representative Keith Hall responded to questions pertaining to the two phases of
construction and the locations of kitchen and entertainment area on the site plan before
displaying PowerPoint slides addressing key height limit issues.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dustin Pires, San Luis Obispo, extended support of project in terms of height and materials;
commented on new activity changing dynamic and context of neighborhood warranting variance
in design guidelines to accommodate modern architecture complementing that which is more
traditional.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Wynn discussed design constraints associated with non-conforming & smaller-than-
average lots, the necessity of permanence for privacy walls on car wash side of structure, and
substituting the phrase “substantially reduce” for “eliminate” in discussion of metal siding.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 5
Commissioners Root, Soll, Curtis and Nemcik discussed their respective stances on the addition
and height of third floor, the prominence of entryway, and the aesthetics of the separation wall.
The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.
2881 Broad Street. ARCH-2264-2015: Conceptual review of four new single-family dwellings;
R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant.
Assistant Planner Oetzell provided Staff Report, detailing a City Council-approved property
exchange agreement and the Staff Recommendation’s twelve (12) Directional Items.
Applicant Representatives, Dustin Pires and Eric Newton, presented the project, pointing out that
it had undergone multiple iterations, prior to discussing each Directional Item. In response to
Vice-Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Applicant Pires noted that the tightly constrained property had been
subdivided in such a manner in order to meet technical drainage and grading plans.
Commissioner Root and Vice-Chair Ehdaie asked questions of Applicant pertaining to street
yards and driveways.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Loretta Ramseyer, Rusée Parvin, David Helmholz, Robert Elke, Mary Gibbs and Laurah Lee
Waldorf, San Luis Obispo, spoke as residents of Stoneridge community with concerns relating to
vehicular traffic access onto Broad Street, the need for solid red curbs to limit parking in
neighborhood, the project failing to reflect the design guidelines to which neighborhood was
subject, and not being properly notified about the project.
Eric Newton, San Luis Obispo, addressed Stoneridge community comments; informed that
Perkins is a non-conforming street.
Rodessa Newton, San Luis Obispo, indicated primary goal of project is to meet City’s infill
housing needs; opined that project’s intention is not to mimic Stoneridge’s existing
Mediterranean design.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR
EHDAIE, the Commission continued Hearing past 9:00 p.m., on the following 6:0:0:1 vote:
AYES: Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Soll, Root, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andreen
Chair Wynn allowed the Applicant to respond to Public Comment. Applicant Pires discussed the
widening of Perkins and the development of a right-hand turn lane on Stoneridge Drive being
part of land exchange agreement; commented on existing No Parking signs and number of
contextual differences between project and Stoneridge neighborhood.
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 6
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Ehdaie shared concern about paved driveways per Directional Item #3;
Commissioner Curtis indicated monotonous design warranted variety in site plan per Directional
Item #11; Commissioner Soll called attention to Perkins being a substandard right-of-way per
Directional Item #5.
Commissioner Root and Chair Wynn concurred in their estimation of Other Yard setbacks being
half of what code requires and each voiced lack of support for project as proposed.
Commissioner Nemcik stated that adherence to Community Design Guidelines would suggest
making the site plan’s garages consistently subordinate to living spaces.
Chair Wynn assessed that each of the twelve (12) Directional Items were all on track for
Applicant to follow, specifically citing #3 as their primary focal point.
The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.
Agenda Forecast:
July 11th: Long-Bonetti Ranch at Tank Farm Road and South Higuera, recently reviewed by the
Cultural Heritage Committee; Ford/VW dealership’s significant remodel and expansion on Los
Osos Valley Road
July 18th: The Creamery’s remodel at 570 Higuera; 71 Palomar
Discussion ensued regarding the conversion to Action Minutes and the City Clerk Office’s audio
recordings of Commission proceedings as additional & alternative original material resource.
Deputy Director Davidson informed Commission about the movement to Action Minutes for
Advisory Body meetings being consistent with City Council proceedings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Approved by Architectural Review Commission: XX/XX/2016
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 7