The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-05-2016 ARC Minutes APPROVED 1.30.17 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, December 5, 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, December 5th, 2016 at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Greg Wynn. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioner Amy Nemcik Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 22 Chorro Street. ARCH-2794-2016; Architectural review of a new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units and mechanical parking lifts, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-C-SF zone; San Luis Obispo Development Group, LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Cohen provided project background and Staff Report with PowerPoint. Commissioner Root requested description of how and which affordable housing units were determined; requested explanation of how parking reductions were calculated; requested definition of Density Units (DU) as itemized on the provided Project Statistics chart. In response to Commissioner Soll’s inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere clarified underlying tenets of the City Council-approved Use Permit as it relates to affordable housing, parking reductions, and traffic impacts. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for December 5th, 2016 Page 2 In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen discussed Staff’s interpretation of setback requirements on the unique corner site and why it involves a zero-foot setback. Thom Jess, Project Architect & Applicant Representative, addressed specifics of the site in his presentation; responded to Commissioner Root’s question regarding the requirements for an onsite manager and Commissioner Rolph’s question regarding the auto lift system. Chair Wynn inquired about the units’ double doors in the floor plan and how they affect two- bedroom occupancy numbers; inquired about bike lounge access; inquired about any Public Works’ review of patio space; apprised Public that a robust amount of Agenda Correspondence had been received and reviewed by the Commission on the item. --Start of Public Comment— Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, confined his remarks to Findings #1 and #2 of Resolution in discussing the lack of veracity within them. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, discussed the currently dangerous traffic patterns around the site that would only be exacerbated by the development of the project. Elizabeth Nicholson, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a resident of project site’s neighborhood about the irony of receiving a survey regarding the primary objective of City being Neighborhood Wellness. Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, urged Commission to not disregard the concerns pertaining to the project as stated by the Planning Commission in its August 24th denial. David Hafemeister, San Luis Obispo, stated belief that the project is less traditional apartment building than it is a dormitory that should be built on Cal Poly campus. Richard Racouillat, San Luis Obispo, raised issues in support of opposition to project that he had previously compiled and stated in Agenda Correspondence; discussed predominantly the substantial safety risk of crossing Foothill Boulevard, as well as errors in the parking space reduction calculation indicating that the mechanical lift feature is not accessible to common use and is not appropriate in mixed-use projects. Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo, spoke on behalf of young professionals who support the project’s visionary presence and its compliance with Community Design Guidelines. Delilah Curtis, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident of neighboring Rougeot Street, in opposition to project due to its impacts on currently congested parking on peripheral side streets. James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke on project’s architectural incompatibility with existing neighborhood and the nature of its violations against the General Plan as they pertain to a scenic roadway. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for December 5th, 2016 Page 3 Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of high-density, mixed-us infill projects in general and the architectural rendering of this project specifically, but voiced concerns in regards to safety and welfare issues not having yet been fully addressed; suggested continuance of project in conjunction with City Council to hammer out intentions, in light of Commission’s limited purview and the future impacts to the neighborhood. Oolile Ayral, San Luis Obispo, discussed the negative impact on the safety and health of the existing neighborhood residents proximal to the project; requested an updated traffic study. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, shared personal experience on the difficulty of negotiating Foothill Boulevard’s current traffic patterns; requested that project be story-poled. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo, inquired about the procedure involving written correspondence in advance of Hearings. Chair Wynn publicly acknowledged Councilmember Ashbaugh’s years of service to the community. Kerry Brown, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighborhood resident adjacent to project; discussed the project as being out-of-scale, out-of-character and incompatible with its projected surroundings. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, discussed the project in terms of being out-of-scale with the neighborhood; discussed the density units’ computation as being problematic. Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Code Enforcement Officer familiar with NIMBY complaints in her opposition to those residents who are voicing dissatisfactions with the project’s intentions. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, cited the bullet points from her Agenda Correspondence, namely of environmental safety concerns, traffic problems involving the nearby fire station, and the political decision of the City Council overturning the Planning Commission’s denial of project. Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo, discussed the City Council’s approval of the project as being an open admission to not having any other legal options available; encouraged Commission to pursue collaborative Resolution with newly-seated City Council. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, spoke as representative for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; discussed the two-bedroom conversion issue as it pertained to the Icon development on Kentucky Street. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, assured Commission that speakers in opposition to project are not voicing their concerns out of NIMBY-ism. --End of Public Comment— Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for December 5th, 2016 Page 4 Associate Planner Cohen addressed the issues and concerns raised by Public testimony as they regarded the intersection’s re-evaluation and redesign of the pedestrian refuge island; the parking calculation; Parking District applications; violation of viewsheds; and traffic studies. Chair Wynn inquired about potential environmental contamination on the site; inquired about parameters for determining percentages of mixed-use components; inquired about setback requirement around the site’s perimeter. Vice-Chair Ehdaie requested clarification on the requested 40% parking reduction as it applied to parking spaces attached to both the mechanical lift system and shared parking. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere reiterated that the parking reduction had already been approved by City Council and the ability to re-visit the issue was limited. Chair Wynn reiterated the tenets of the constricted purview under which the Commission was operating in regards to the project. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere pointed out that the primary task of the Commission was to review the design as it relates to the Community Design Guidelines; indicated that the Commission’s ability to revise the design is subject to the Density Bonus Law and protected under the Housing Accountability Act. Commissioner Soll inquired about the City Council’s approval of the Use Permit as it applied to the parking reduction and its extension of the height concession. Chair Wynn hypothesized that, no matter the outcome of the Commission Hearing vote, the Item will most likely be appealed to the City Council. Community Development Director Codron added that the approved Resolution is now an Entitlement owned by the property owner and what would be considered by the newly-seated City Council upon any Appeal would be the items under the scope of what would be the Architectural Review Commission’s constrained decision on the challenging site’s redesign. Commissioner Root commented on the difficulty of determining what the true density of any given project; voiced that the architecture on this particular project is commendable, but indicated a consideration for a lighter color palette. Commissioner Rolph favored the City’s incremental improvement in the traffic situation with the bus stop and the right-turn lane. Commissioner Soll referred to the Resolution’s Findings to indicate her struggle with being able to support the project, given her concerns for impacts to the surrounding neighborhood chiefly in the area of the project’s lack of ample parking. Vice-Chair Ehdaie shared concerns about the outdoor patio; concurred with Commissioner Root on the suggestion of a lighter color palette; voiced that the design remains bulky and boxy despite being consistent with Community Design Guidelines. Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for December 5th, 2016 Page 5 Chair Wynn shared opinion that the developer was provided a set of rules & benefits and has undergone the process appropriately; requested further discussion on the quantity and intensity of materials and colors toward determining appropriateness; discussed neighborhood privacy issues as they apply to both the roof patio overlooking the R-1 zone and the lone studio deck; sought consensus on the outside corner patio use. In response to various Commissioners’ inquiries, Community Development Director Codron re- confirmed the City Council’s approval of the project’s parking spaces. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROLPH, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings and subject to conditions, on the following 4:1:1 vote: AYES: Root, Rolph, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: Soll ABSENT: Nemcik COMMENT & DISCUSSION 1. STAFF a. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Davidson provided Agenda Forecast. Informal discussion ensued on the ongoing recruitment process for Commission seat vacancy. ADJOURNMENT Chair Wynn adjourned the Meeting at 7:34 PM. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 01/30/2017