Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2016 ARC Minutes Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, November 21, 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, November 21st, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Acting Chair Suzan Ehdaie. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Acting Chair Suzan Ehdaie Absent: Commissioner Brian Rolph & Chair Greg Wynn Staff: Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Shawna Scott, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes for the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of October 17, 2016: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, the ARC Minutes of October 17, 2016 were approved, as written, on the following 4:0:2 vote: AYES: Soll, Nemcik, Root, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSENT: Rolph, Wynn PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1911 Johnson Avenue. ARCH-3641-2016: Review of modifications to a previously-approved medical office building within the French Hospital campus and associated amendment to the campus master plan, including removal of a 6,000-square foot office building from the plan, with a determination that the significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed in a previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project consists of a four-story plus basement, 58,600-square foot medical arts building, basement parking garage, and Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for November 21, 2016 Page 2 additional parking spaces within the campus; O-S zone; San Luis Obispo Physicians Health Alliance, applicant. Associate Planner Scott provided Staff Report and made PowerPoint presentation. Rob Rossi, Applicant Representative, commended Ms. Scott for explaining each complex piece of the proposed project so well; discussed the consistency of materials and color palette proposed within the campus; pointed out the various reasoning behind the proposal of each of the modification’s components. Tim Ronda, Studio Design Group Architects, commented on the second level of the parking garage and the willingness to respond to the neighborhood’s visual aspect concerns through landscape screening. Commissioner Soll inquired about the unifying nature of the architecture and materials being proposed. In response, Applicant Representative Rossi discussed the upgraded architecture having responded to the consolidation of services, the approved Master Plan, and seismic codes, in addition to the changes in how medicine is now being practiced. In response to Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiry regarding tree-replanting, Applicant Representative Rossi indicated the intended landscaping will exceed what is required. Commissioner Root inquired about the parking space adjacency issues; inquired about the shadow- space line of landscaping that is ultimately planned as a roof deck; requested explanation of the trash enclosures and their site locations. Acting Chair Ehdaie requested information on the campus’ internal pedestrian circulation. --Start of Public Comment— Randy Walter, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a resident on Ella Street; shared that the parking garage, even in its initially proposed iteration, was an infringement on his yard’s privacy; reported that street parking is currently over-utilized by hospital staff due to onsite parking inadequacies. --End of Public Comment— Acting Chair Ehdaie requested that Associate Planner Scott provide the dimensions of the parking garage’s height increase, from between the 2014 approved site plan and its currently proposed revised plan, to confirm that it remains in the same general footprint. Commissioner Root voiced approval of the project’s architecture and commended its plentitude of articulation; pointed out Condition #10’s mention of landscape screening at the juncture of parking lot and adjacent homes as an attribute responsive to voiced neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Soll indicated that the increased presence of varying types of medical specialists working on the proposed campus is of upgraded importance. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for November 21, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Nemcik voiced that the service parking issues would be positively mitigated with the inclusion of the improved parking structure design. In response to Acting Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Associate Planner Scott pointed out the methods by which the applicant would satisfy parking requirements. Acting Chair Ehdaie inquired about how the applicant and the neighbors might best address and negotiate both offsite parking and potential privacy encroachment issues. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings and subject to conditions, on the following 4:0:2 vote: AYES: Root, Soll, Nemcik, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSENT: Rolph, Wynn 2. 2881 Broad Street. ARCH-2264-2015: Continued review of four single-family dwellings within a Common Interest Development, including minor exceptions to reduce Other Yards to zero for carports and to allow building encroachments ranging from 1 to 7.5 feet into interior Other Yards for limited portions of three buildings (categorically exempt from environmental review); R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the PowerPoint review of the modified subdivision project as guided by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) June 20th, 2016 eleven (11) Directional Items; mentioned that a related subdivision application is being processed in which action by the Subdivision Hearing Officer is scheduled over a tentative date following ARC Action on this project. Dustin Pires, Applicant, reiterated and responded to the comments from the previous Commission review of the project. Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the trellises on the covered parking, the consolidation of the driveways, and the breadth of the roof deck materials; Acting Chair Ehdaie requested clarification on the covered parking’s relationship to any approval by Commission. Commissioner Soll inquired about the headroom availability on the top landing of the roof deck stairs and whether the Staff Recommendation involved the further reduction of massing of the roof deck. Commissioner Root inquired about the residual space created within the stair towers. Acting Chair Ehdaie inquired about the second-story window design and whether the windows might be enlarged. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for November 21, 2016 Page 4 --Start of Public Comment— Loretta Ramseyer, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a resident of Stoneridge Drive; read her Agenda Correspondence which entailed her dissatisfaction with, and opposition to, the proposed project, due to its lack of compliance with Community Design Guidelines. Mary Gibbs, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighborhood resident proximal to project site; voiced concern about not being properly notified of development proceedings; voiced opposition to project due to neighborhood incompatibility. Hilary Anderson, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighborhood resident; commented that project site is located as to be considered the gateway to Stoneridge properties and voiced wonderment at the proposal being so out-of-character with the established homes. Laura Lee Waldorf, spoke as caregiver for resident of Stoneridge; indicated that more residents of neighborhood would have become involved in voicing their opinions on the project had they been properly notified; lobbied for traffic control signals at corner of Broad to be implemented. --End of Public Comment— Commissioner Root inquired about the neighborhood compatibility issues with Stoneridge development. Assistant Planner Oetzell indicated that the project is not part of the Stoneridge tract, despite the monument sign’s location at the entryway suggesting otherwise, and therefore not subject to the existing community’s design guidelines. Deputy Director Davidson indicated the proposed project’s site is situated in the higher-density R-2 zoning as opposed to Stoneridge’s R-1. Applicant Pires commented that the project’s design is intended to achieve more connectivity with the development occurring in the future Broad Street Corridor; mentioned that Applicant team is forfeiting profit in favor of widening Perkins Lane and establishing an improved public right-of-way on Stoneridge. In response to Commissioner Soll’s inquiries, Assistant Planner Oetzell stated that a formal landscape plan had been omitted from the proposal package. Deputy Director Davidson stipulated that a standard Condition pertaining to implementing a landscape plan would be added. In response to Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiry, Applicant Pires discussed the City’s new water regulations as they pertained to drainage and reclamation on the project. In response to Acting Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Eric Newton, Co-Applicant, discussed plaster control joints in relation to window design and placement. The Commission and Staff discussed adding language to Finding #4 which would explore options toward increasing articulation. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for November 21, 2016 Page 5 Commissioner Root suggested subtle alterations in the echoing of the roof deck’s trellis feature within another section of the dwelling which would pull design away from a rectilinear gr id and provide enhanced visual interest. Acting Chair Ehdaie commended Applicant on the improvement of project from its original proposal and its added community value. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings and subject to conditions, with the following amendments: A.) Add a condition of approval requiring that final plans for construction permits include a Landscape Plan. B.) Add a condition of approval requiring that further articulation be provided to the building elevations at the second level of each dwelling for additional visual interest, using techniques like reglets, alteration of window form or pattern, decorative elements, or similar methods. C.) Add a condition of approval requiring that the roof-deck pergola structures be modified so that they are varied in form to provide additional interest, to move away from a rigid rectilinear appearance, and that the pergolas be “echoed” by a projecting detail (limited to the allowed 30” projection) over the uncovered parking spaces at the side of each dwelling. on the following 4:0:2 vote: AYES: Root, Soll, Nemcik, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSENT: Rolph, Wynn Acting Chair Ehdaie instituted a five-minute recess. COMMENT & DISCUSSION 1. STAFF a. Finalize Recommended Goals for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan Deputy Director Davidson stated that Agenda Correspondence had been provided to each Commissioner reflecting the alterations made to the latest Advisory Body Goals presentation over its entirety; requested the Commission review and provide commentary and edits. Acting Chair Ehdaie commented that the language crafted for the Architectural Review Commission’s contributions to the overall presentation were to be commended. No edits were forthcoming from Commission. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for November 21, 2016 Page 6 Discussion ensued on the possibilities of having Staff present a compact version of a Master Plan for the Recycled Water Program. Deputy Director Davidson requested Commission consideration for various types of Advisory Body training retreats. b. Agenda Forecast December 5th: 22 Chorro Street December 19th: Nothing scheduled, potentially cancelled ADJOURNMENT: Acting Chair Ehdaie adjourned the Meeting at 7:17 PM. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 01/09/2017