Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Item 12, CooperCOUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: 12- JAN 17 2017 To: Subject: RE: 560 Higuera Street L 1_ r", rC From: "Allan Cooper" < Date: Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:54 PM -0800 Subject: 560 Higuera Street To: "E-mail Council Website" <emailcounciICcslocity.org>, "Codron, Michael" <mcodronaslocity.org>, "Cohen, Rachel" qcohen(c7slocity.prg> Dear Michael and Rachel - Would you kindly forward this letter regarding Street to the City Council before their January meeting? Thanks! - Allan 560 Higuera 17, 2017 To; SLO City Council Re: Appeal of 560 Higuera St. - "South Town Eighteen" From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: January 17, 2017 Honorable Mayor & Council Members I would like to thank Arris Architects and the developer for the improvements that they made to this project between the August 15, 2016 ARC meeting and their last submittal to the ARC on October 17, 2016. Per my recommendation and the recommendations that came from the ARC, the architect reduced the amount of COR -TEN steel used on the fagade (replacing it with terra cotta brick), incorporated horizontal elements at the first and second floor levels, reduced the height of the vertical towers and provided a better transition between the height of the project and The Creamery. This is a much improved project from a contextual standpoint. However, I would like to support the concerns expressed by the Dana Street residents and the appellants. First, as I've mentioned before, the car headlights should be shielded from the Dana Street homes. The landscaping plans we see before us are conceptual. Staff is recommending that only the Community Development Director will have access to the final landscape plans. This is unacceptable considering that the architect has been fully aware of the neighbors' concerns regarding car noise and light intrusion since August 15th. These plans should have sufficient detail that they can be satisfactorily reviewed by the concerned neighbors - not just the Community Development Director - to determine if the additional screening in front of the parking facing the creek will adequately reduce the potential of light and noise trespass into the creek and residential areas. Staff notes that noise from the parking garage will be minimized with additional screening and that this is required as a part of Condition No. 9. However, as we all know, plant materials do not attenuate car noise ... only a sound wall like that incorporated into the site plan for the Monterey Hotel (1845/1865 Monterey Street) will help mitigate car noise. Moreover, the Monterey Hotel architect was also required to fully enclose the parking structure at ground level to further attenuate noise and car lights. Don't the residents of Dana Street deserve the same mitigations that were granted the San Luis Drive residents? As for noise emanating from the balconies: In lieu of eliminating the balconies, I encourage you to consider enclosing the balconies with glass or plexiglas up to 6 feet in height. This would serve the dual purpose of screening out unwanted noise emanating from the apartments while protecting the balconies from the inclement year- round, northwesterly breezes. Staff notes that views toward the residences are "largely" blocked by trees. However, "largely" may not be adequate and step backs at the fourth floor level would help address this overlook problem. Furthermore, the winter solstice shadow plan clearly shows a mid-afternoon (3:00 P.M.) encroachment onto a neighbor's garden and onto an array of photovoltaic panels and this could again be mitigated by increasing the fourth floor step backs. Though this is not a concern of the appellants, I wish to restate my concern that the developer should give serious consideration to extending the creek -walk abutting the Creamery through their property without threading it through the proposed parking garage. It should be noted that this recommendation has most recently come from the Downtown Concept Plan Creative Vision Team. Finally, I have serious concerns about the wording in staff's draft "Resolution For The City Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo, California, Upholding An Appeal". These project findings do not have to be consistent with Government Code § 65589.5(J) - findings which are egregiously difficult to achieve - if all of the above changes I'm recommending can be accomplished without lowering the project's density or increase the project's costs. I am merely recommending increased step backs from the Creek at the fourth floor level. Fourth floor units 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 can easily be stepped back by locating them above the 3rd floor covered walkway facing Higuera Street. I am also calling your attention to major errors made in Section 1 where you use the word "deny" when you were meant to use the word "uphold" or "approve". Therefore, I am recommending the following changes be made to your draft resolution for upholding the appeal: "Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved By The City Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo As Follows: I'1__a: _._ r:.__I 1'1____111.__._ All TL. r..:J_.___ TV /"�:1.. /1 �...-�:1 RA�I.��TL� i�ll�...:.--. Sectlun I . Findings. llg. s. Based Upon All I I le Evidence, I I e City (3ou Il:ll Mages I I le Following Findings To Derry Uphold The Appeal (Appl-4063-2016) Of The Architectural Review Commission Decision, Thereby Cir-anting-Final-Approval To The "est Referring The Project Back To The Architectural Review Commission With Direction That The Fourth Floor Step Backs Facing The Creek Be Increased, That The Balconies Facing The Creek Be Soundproofed And That A Detailed Landscape And Sound Wall Plan Be Designed To Mitigate Car Noise And Headlight Intrusion Into The Dana Street Neighborhood (Arch -3020-2016), Based On The Following Findings: 1. That the proposed project height without increased step backs at the fourth floor level is inconsistent with tho Community Design Guidelines because the project's height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the immediate neighborhood of one and two story buildings and the proposed development would create an abrupt discrepancy in height and massing and overwhelm the neighboring properties. 2. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project without increased step backs at the fourth floor level will negatively impact the neighboring properties because the project does not respect the privacy of neighboring buildings and protect solar access." Thank you for your time and consideration.