Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2016 ARC MinutesMinutes t sti 1 , ,•• ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, August 1, 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, August 1, 2016 at 5:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Greg Wynn. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice -Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn Absent: None Staff: Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the process of City staff using agenda correspondence to submit additional materials to the Agenda Packet and prior to the Public Hearing. Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, made two requests for the Commission to consider, namely to cancel tonight's Hearing or at least limit the scope toward gathering more information from interested parties. Mr. Crough argued that any Conceptual Review process should refrain from providing guidance to the Applicant until all relevant data has been collected as part of the record. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, requested that the Commission urges those who speak on an item to identify themselves and their affiliation with the project. Ms. Small stressed protection of the neighborhoods and residents as her primary objective. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, questioned prematurity of any project that comes before ARC purview without CEQA in place. Chair Wynn commented that staff has instructed Advisory Bodies in the past that any request for having speakers identify themselves at the podium is issued out of courtesy and not out of a demand. Chair Wynn provided the background on how Agenda Correspondence is entered into the record and how staff is highly diligent in this respect. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Regular Meetint, of June 6, 2016: NOTE: Per July 21, 2016 correspondence from City Clerk to ARC, the June 6, 2016 Minutes approved on July 11, 2016 contained an unintentional omission of the Consideration of Minutes section; hence, Action was required to re -consider and Approve the amended minutes. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, the ARC Minutes of June 6, 2016 were approved with aforementioned amendment following 6:0:1:0 vote: AYES: Root, Nemcik, Curtis, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: None ABSTAIN: Andreen ABSENT: None Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Reiuiar Mcetin: of June 20, 2016: AMENDMENT: Page 1, Consideration of Minutes, Amendment, to read "...expressed concerns regarding potentially significant traffic impacts..." and "...water supply in the long-term, given recurring drought conditions." AMENDMENT: Page 1, Consideration of Minutes, Action, insert statement under votes to read: "Commissioner Curtis stated that he was abstaining due to his objection to the new action minutes approach." AMENDMENT: Page 3, third paragraph, to read: "..."objections to the project's height based on view shed obstructions and voiced a litmy ef fu number of other objections, including the Applicant's once again not responding to Commission's majority direction, concerns regarding traffic impacts and water supply & availability." ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, the ARC Minutes of June 20, 2016 were approved as amended on the following 6:0:1:0 vote: AYES: Soll, Root, Curtis, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: None ABSTAIN: Andreen ABSENT: None Minutes —Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 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) Commissioner Andreen acknowledged that she had consulted with the City Attorney's Office to determine that she had no conflict of interest on Item #1, considering she had previously resided on Serrano Drive. Planner Corey clarified that the Commission will not make a final action for the proposed project. Planner Cohen presented the staff report and requested feedback for the Applicant on the multi- family project; summarized the background, following the June 27th CHC Recommendations for the revised project; displayed a PowerPoint presentation with an aerial view of the site and other project highlights, including the three directional items pertaining to scale & massing, material & architectural elements and the landscaping plans. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Andreen questioned whether the Commission should consult the Community Design Guidelines for infill projects in addition to Multi -Family Design Guidelines; requested that the balconies, porches and patios be indicated on the PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Curtis commented on the Commission's difficulty in proceeding on the conceptual level without possessing complete information; expressed concern that he'd been denied access to correspondence e-mails received by staff, questioned whether, relocated structures qualify as historic landmarks. Planner Cohen responded that supplemental information regarding the relocation of the Sandford House and the project's architectural materials would be included in the final review packet. Commissioner Nemcik inquired about any existing parking requirements; Vice -Chair Ehdaie raised question pertaining to the potentiality of subterranean parking in the project's layout. Chair Wynn cited the City Attorney's response memorandum, regarding any overt suggestions that scheduling a Conceptual Review Hearing would violate purpose of CEQA; concurred with Commissioner Curtis that any specific discussion on landscaping and tree removal at this Hearing would be premature. Commissioner Andreen opined that providing any analysis, discussion, or meaningful feedback on structure placement and scale borders on impossible without the input of a Tree Report. Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Soll made a Motion to delay the Public Hearing until further notice from arborists and receipt of other environmental information; Commissioner Curtis seconded; discussion ensued. Commissioner Soll mentioned that the City Arborist had contributed a memorandum to the record, Commissioner Andreen agreed that the tree removal issue was a predominant concern, but she was also having uncertainties regarding the structure's architectural style; Commissioner Root concurred in regards to the Public Hearing being premature and agreed to continuing to a date uncertain; Commissioner Nemcik opined that she would be comfortable providing recommendations on two directional items other than landscaping, in part because future deliberation of final plans; Vice -Chair Ehdaie shared that the purpose of any Public Hearing is to provide a forum where all sides are aired as part of the information collection process; Chair Wynn concurred with Commissioners Nemcik & Ehdaie and stated that the public process in this case would be best served through testimony with no formal action taken, suggesting that any discussion on landscape issues could be postponed. A motion made by Commissioner Soll, seconded by Commissioner Curtis, to continue to a date uncertain until relevant information is gathered for which ARC can make final decision failed on the following 3:4:0:0 roll call vote: AYES: Soll, Curtis, Andreen NOES: Root, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Root indicated he was swayed to change his vote by the three Commissioners who voiced the reasons behind their motion -dissenting opinions. Commissioner Andreen disclosed that ex partie correspondence had been sent directly to only some of the Commissioners from Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Member James Papp which paraphrased what had occurred at pertinent CHC Hearing from his perspective; disclosed that she had also received ex pantie communication from Alan Cooper lobbying against the project. Chair Wynn voiced that he had received the same ex pantie communiques. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Thom Jess, Founding Partner, Arris Studio Architects, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the applicant's responses to the scale & massing, architectural elements, and directional items. Vice Chair Ehdaie inquired about the unit number reduction toward reducing scale and its relation to R-4 land use. Commissioner Andreen inquired whether the applicant agreed that the Sandford House is representative of an Agrarian -style architecture and whether the applicant felt that they had adequately complied with the In -Fill Compatibility Guidelines. Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Root inquired whether the Applicant would be requesting exceptions for the project. Chair Wynn inquired about bedroom sizes and the number of leases expected in regards to the floor plan layout. Commissioner Soll inquired about rental properties related to affordable housing and if the proposed project meets density requirements. Commissioner Curtis inquired about the number of affordable housing units in the complex. Commissioner Andreen inquired about the consistency of traditional setback patterns within the neighborhood; inquired about setbacks of upper floors in the Building Height Guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENT Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Executive Director of SLO County Housing Trust Fund in support of project. Lydia Mourenza, Peter Crough, Bob Mourenza, Roberto Monge, Jody Vollmer, Elizabeth DeHaan, Al Lipper, Kit Gould, Johna Vacanti, Betsy Schwartz, Diana Schmiett, Richard Schmidt, and Mary French, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighboring residents to, and in opposition of the project; voiced various concerns including: the overburdened parking situation in neighborhood; the dormitory -style design and the fallacy that it's designed as a multi -family dwelling; the general ruination of the cultural landscape; the magnitude of the proposal for historic site doing nothing to retain residential environment; and the impacts to neighborhood wellness through severe influx of student traffic. Corliss Campbell, San Luis Obispo, wished to speak on wildlife habitats impacted by tree removal. Ms. Campbell indicated she would provide commentary at the next Public Hearing. Victor Johnson, San Luis Obispo, spoke as President of Delta Tau Corporation; shared the backstory of a longtime ownership and increased preservation efforts during the tenure, and the non-factual popular narrative regarding the history of the trees. Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the high rate of party noise complaints filed with SLOPD every year; urged for in-depth noise study to be rendered on project; advocated for on-site resident manager to be conditioned as requirement for project. Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, spoke of his own residential neighborhood being fortunate enough to contain a student population amenable to civilized living; shared the statistic that student housing units now tend to become overcrowded with students who own automobiles. James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the scheduling process regarding Public Hearings, specifically to the faulty reporting of the unit number reduction between the respective CHC and ARC Reviews; advocated for reducing density to R-2 or R-1. Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 5 Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed project, as means of bringing more adequate supply of housing due to the current demand. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Cal Poly alumnus and local employer who on behalf of college graduates desire to evolve out of college rentals and into more professional domiciles. Lisa Combs, San Luis Obispo, shared that, although appreciative of the Palomar neighborhood concerns, is cognizant of the desperate need for housing in City; voiced that the project meets all criteria and complies with City standards; indicated support of the proposed project. Tayler Simpson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed project as a local professional, whose biggest challenge to date is finding an adequate place to live. Suzanne Knapp, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the idea of cutting down the 45 heritage trees and against a student population. Bob Nastase, San Luis Obispo, shared insight from multiple years as a developer that with Cal Poly continuing to grow, and with no provision for student housing, students will continue to gravitate toward established residential communities to live. Tyler Beaty, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the increasing rent for local housing and the need for affordable housing for college alumni who wish to stay in the community. Salem Ahmed, San Luis Obispo, commented on the standard of living being in decline, while market rates rise for residences in the City; spoke in support of the proposed project. Enrique Ivers, San Luis Obispo, indicated that untruths exist related to the comments being made about the proposed project, specifically to Cal Poly's obligation to build housing for its students. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced that she had hoped for the hearing to have been continued; commented on the lack of transparency for the proposed project; encouraged developers to pursue public-private partnerships with Cal Poly; noted the lack of water availability given climate change. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke as the neighborhoods' advocate in support of Ramona- Luneta families and against developers' misleading practices. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, opined that the site serves as a buffer between student, senior and family demographics that need to be preserved as a cultural landscape. Danny Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, indicated that longtime City homeowners do not comprehend the complexities which Cal Poly graduates undergo in search of affordable housing. Chair Wynn offered ten-minute recess. Minutes —Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 6 COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION Chair Wynn reiterated the Commission consensus, noting that it was premature for direction for landscaping, without adequate information. The Commission provided added direction which suggested conducting analyses with a broader perspective beyond tree removal and would specifically address the area's habitat, biology, its view sheds, wildlife corridor, and the proposed green screen wall in an area without planters. Chair Wynn suggested that any changes to the development would return to a Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting and allow for recommendations prior to any review by the Commission. The Commission discussed the general material palette, whether materials and combinations were appropriate, and their overall relation to the compatibility with the Sandford House. Commissioner Root provided direction in regards to the Applicants, considering the durability and maintainability of the presented selected materials. On a Motion by Commissioner Soll, Seconded by Commissioner Root, the Commission voted unanimously to conduct the Hearing past 9:00 P.M. Chair Wynn provided direction in regards to reducing the bedroom count and building height, especially closest to Luneta Drive. The Commission discussed the articulation of north wall requiring variation beyond the smooth stucco between windows, wider walkways for increased room for pedestrian circulation, and maintaining the symbiosis created when the lower buildings are subservient to the Sandford House. Applicant Jess indicated he received all informational direction and required no further clarification. By consensus, the Commission provided no formal action and feedback to staff and Applicant through previously mentioned deliberations and discussion. COMMENT & DISCUSSION Commissioners Andreen and Root commented respectively on the Hearing process being less than ideal at certain points, but that it was ultimately invaluable, balanced, collaborative, and well- conducted by Chair Wynn. Principal Planner Corey provided the Agenda Forecast: August 1511: Southtown 18 (560 Higuera), a mixed-use project at former site of Hometown Nursery and next to Creamery on flag lot parcel; a mixed-use project at 1259 Laurel Lane; and the Sign Regulations Update & Study Session Minutes —Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 7 September 12th: Serra Meadows, the Affordable Housing site at 408 Prado Road proposed by Housing Authority September 1911: Joint CHC & ARC Hearing on Bishop Street Studios, the rehabilitation proposal of the Transitions Mental Health Association; ARC Review of 22 Chorro Street, a mixed-use project t corner of Foothill Boulevard. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 09/12/2016 Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 8