The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-12-2018 Item 1 - Cooper Purrington, Teresa From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February To:Advisory Bodies; Cohen, Rachel; CityClerk Subject:Public Hearing Item 1 - 1575 Monterey Street Dear Rachel - I am submitting the letter below to the Architectural Review Commission hoping there will be sufficient time for the Commissioners to read it before their February 12, 2018 meeting. Thanks! - Allan To: SLO Architectural Review Commission and Rachel Cohen Re: Public Hearing Item 1 - 1575 Monterey Street (Los Padres Inn) From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: February 8, 2018 Honorable Chair Wynn and Architectural Review Commissioners - You are a discretionary decision making body. Your role is not, as staff may sometimes imply, to insure that the project "complies" with the zoning ordinance and thereby “rubber stamp” every code compliant project that comes before you. Your role is rather (per the Community Design Guidelines) to determine whether a project is "appropriate" to the neighborhood. A similar, equally tall hotel - the Monterey Hotel - was vociferously opposed by the San Luis Drive neighborhood several years ago and they had the benefit of a creek to separate this 4-story commercial development from their residences. However, the Upper Higuera Street Neighborhood has a proposed 4-story building rising only six feet from their property lines. Unlike San Luis Drive, the Upper Higuera Street Neighborhood has neither the benefit of a creek, a Special Consideration Zone nor an ordinance to protect them. The only thing standing between this neighborhood and future 4-story monoliths lining the south side of Monterey Street is the Community Design Guidelines and your discretionary powers. Your Community Design Guidelines state the following: 1) abrupt changes in building heights (in this case, one-story buildings immediately next to four-story buildings) would be diminished by “offsets in building mass”: 2) human scale and proportion would be achieved through “second floor setbacks” and 3) the “massing (and use) of neighboring structures” should be taken into consideration. The Special Consideration Overlay Zone located only one block north of the North Higuera Street Neighborhood was intended to buffer new hotel development from the San Luis Drive Neighborhood. This neighborhood is further protected through Ordinance 1130 which requires new commercial development across San Luis Creek to stagger setbacks 1 in such manner that a building 20 feet back from the creek can be no taller than 25 feet and a building 45 feet tall must be placed 50 feet back from the creek. It calls for buildings to buffer parking particularly where a partially enclosed garage open to the adjoining neighborhood magnifies the noise-generating effects of parking. Even without a creek intervening as an additional buffer, the Upper Higuera Street residents are asking for far less than their San Luis Drive neighbors. They are requesting that the Las Padres Inn, by removing 4 motel rooms (thereby bringing the motel into compliance with SLO's parking regulations) would be able to build 6 feet four inches back from the property line a 23 foot tall building, and build up to 45 feet, approximately 25 feet back from the property line. Unlike a housing project, there is no compelling argument for a parking reduction for this motel. Moreover, reducing parking will very likely result in spill- over of on-street parking into the already over-parked Upper Higuera Street Neighborhood. The parking garage is open along the south elevation facing the residents. Car-related noise (magnified by being partially enclosed), noxious fumes and headlight intrusion should be addressed by closing this in with a concrete block wall. A 40% open air garage can still be achieved by walling in the south elevation and opening up the east elevation by pushing the horizontal exit a few feet further north toward the bike storage area and creating openings underneath the emergency exit stair. In conclusion, please do not let the developer convince you that with a 4-room reduction the project won't “pencil out”. Unlike workforce housing, the issue of feasibility does not factor in and it is not in the City's interest to maximize the developer’s profits. Thank you! ________________________________ My Responses to the Staff Report: Staff: “The CDG discuss that no architectural style or theme is required in the City, however compatibility of a project should be a priority, as well as scale and ambiance. (Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3, Section 3.1 B.1: Architectural Style)” My Response: Increasing the building height along the south elevation from 20 ft. to 45 ft. is neither compatible nor proportional to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff: “Neighborhood Compatibility: The CDG states that design factors that contribute to neighborhood compatibility include: a. Appropriate design theme; b. Proportional building scale/size; c. Appropriate building setbacks and massing; and d. Appropriate colors, textures, and building materials. (Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3, Section 3.1 B.2: Neighborhood Compatibility)” My Response: A 10 foot setback for a 45 foot tall building is not “appropriate” considering its proximity to an historical, one-story residential community. 2 Staff: “The adjacent neighborhood surrounding the project site contains a variety of one- and two-story structures, as well as a nearby three-story structure (Quality Suites).” My Response: Quality Suites is not nearby, is sunken below the street level and is less tall than the proposed Los Padres Inn. Staff: “The project complies with the setbacks and height allowed within the zone as outlined in Table 2 above.” My Response: The project “complies” but is it “appropriate” in scale and size? Staff: The project includes 34 spaces and is requesting an 8% parking reduction with the inclusion of an additional 15 bicycle parking spaces. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 G.2 states “Projects which provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces, up to a 10% reduction, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.” My Response: How many tourists will be arriving by bicycle to this motel? This parking reduction should not apply to motels. Staff: “The south elevation provides an approximately 6-foot setback up to top of the second floor (~23 feet in height) and then the structure steps back another 4 feet and has a 10-foot setback at the 3rd and 4th floors from the property line. Because of the adjacency of the project to residential structures to the south of the site, the applicant modified the original design (see Figure 2) and removed a deck and eliminated the windows (see Figure 3) to reduce any overlook on the adjacent properties.” My Response: The parking garage is open along the south elevation. Car related noise, noxious fumes and headlight intrusion should be addressed by closing this in with a concrete block wall. A 40% open air garage can still be achieved by walling in the south elevation and opening up the east elevation by pushing the horizontal exit further north toward the bike storage room and creating openings underneath the emergency exit stair. Otherwise, the motel owner will have to pay more for a mechanically ventilated garage. The first floor parking garage is 6 ft. 4 in. back from the property line. The second floor king suites are 6 ft. 4 in. back from the property line. The third floor king suites are 10 ft. 0 in. back from the property line. The fourth floor king suites are 10 ft. 0 in. back from the property line. If the developer removed four king suites from both the third and fourth floors (two from each floor) along the south elevation he would meet his parking requirements (33 spaces vs. 37 spaces). Then the third and fourth floors would be placed 24 ft. 11 in. back from the property line. 3