The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-18-13ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 March 18, 2013 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, and Chairperson Jim Duffy ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of March 4, 2013. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action, Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $268 and must accompany the appeal documentation. 1. 736 Higuera Street. ARC 57-12; Review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa building as part of the approved SLO Brewing Company relocation project; C-D-H zone; San Luis Downtown Management, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) 2. 892 Aerovista Place. ARC 142-12; Review of 37,000-square foot office building; BP-SP zone; Quaglino Properties, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Architectural Review Commission Page 2 COMMENT & DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 4. Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planners: Marcus Carloni and Brian Leveille goThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. cll;y of Meeting Date: March 18, 2013 san WIS OBI p0 Item Number: 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa building as part of the approved SLO Brewing Company relocation project, PROJECT ADDRESS: 736/738 Higuera Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarioni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 57-12 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION, Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 6) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Hamish Marshall: San Luis Downtown Management Representative Carol Florence: Oasis Associates, Inc. Zoning C-D-H (Historic Downtown Commercial) General Plan General Retail Site Area —10,800 square feet Environmental Categorically Exempt from Status environmental review under: Section 15301: Existing Facilities Section 15331: Historical Resource Section 15332 In -Fill Development SUMMARY The applicant is proposing interior and exterior modifications to the Master List Carrisa Building. The CHC has recommended approval of the project to the ARC with an added condition that the ARC review an alternate design of the rear staircase for better compatibility with the scale of the building. Staff is recommending approval of the project based on findings of consistency with CHC direction and the Community Design Guidelines. However, staff is recorrunending the following modification as described (and shown in italics) in this staff report. 1) ARC comment on the final leg of the staircase that lands adjacent to the pedestrian easement [see section 4.1], 2) use of a the bulkhead rather than precast concrete [section 4.3.1], 3) use of a more historically appropriate light fixture on the Higuera Street elevation [section 4.3.1], and 4) use of a more durable bollard style path light at rear of the property along the creek -walk [section 4.4]. ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The project is a modification to a Master List historic resource within the Historic Downtown Commercial zone. The ARC's role is to review the applicant's redesign as conditioned by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and ultimately to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). 2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW The applicant, San Luis Downtown Management, has obtained City Council approval of a Use Permit to operate a nightclub and restaurant/bar at 736/738 Higuera Street as the new location for SLO Brewing Company, currently located at 1119 Garden Street. The project proposes interior and exterior modifications to the Master List Carrisa building to accommodate the new use. September 25, 2012 The City Council reviewed the Use Permit for the proposed relocation Council Continuance project on September 25, 2012 and continued the item to the November 20"' Council hearing with direction to the applicant and staff for modifications to the project. October 22, 2012 The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conceptually reviewed the CHC Conceptual Review project on October 22, 2012 to provide feedback to Council on the proposed interior/exterior modifications to the Carrisa building. November 20, 2012 On November 20, 2012, the City Council approved the Use Permit Council Approval allowing SLO Brewing Company's relocation to the Carissa Building. The approval allows a ground floor restaurant/bar/brewery, a second floor auditorium, and a rooftop patio. January 28, 2013 On January 28, 2013, the Cultural Heritage Committee recommended CHCApprovol approval of the project to the ARC with an added condition for the ARC to review alternate design possibilities for the rear staircase that will be compatible with the scale of the building and with the transition to the `W public creek -walk area. The staircase design should consider added symmetry while increasing the visibility of the buildings brick fagade (Attachment 5, January 28, 2013 CHC Staff Report/Resolution & Minutes). 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is located along Higuera Street (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map) in the ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 3 Historic Downtown Commercial (C-D-H) zone. The property is bounded by Downtown Commercial zoning on all sides. The property backs up to San Luis Obispo Creek with Mission San Luis Obispo and residences beyond to the north and northwest. The property is adjacent to retail, restaurant, bar/tavern and night club uses, and some downtown upper story residences in the area. The site contains the 15,000 square foot two-story Carrisa building (c. 1905) which currently accommodates two ground floor retail storefronts with offices on the second floor. 3.2 Project Description The proposed project includes interior and exterior modification to a commercial building (Attachment 2, project plans) (Attachment 3, Existing Floor Plans and Elevations). As approved by the City Council, the ground floor of the building will contain a restaurant/bar/brewery, the second floor will contain an auditorium, and the roof of the building will accommodate a rooftop patio. Significant alterations to the building are as follows; 3.2.1 Significant interior modifications include: , 1) A required retrofit of the unreinforced masonry (URM) building. 2) A ground floor tenant improvement for the restaurant/bar/brewery. 3) A second floor tenant improvement for the auditorium. 4) Lowering the second floor height by two feet (Attachment 2, sheet 11). 3.2.2 Significant exterior modifications (Higuera Street) include: 1) Remodel of the existing ground floor aluminum storefront system to include a sliding wood panel door system and ticket booth (Attachment 2, title sheet & sheet 2). 2) Restoration/reconstruction of the transom windows with opaque glass (based on historic photograph, attachment 4). 3) Accent lighting (gooseneck) affixed to transom (Attachment 2, sheet 2). 4) Replacement of the second floor louvered windows with vertically opening wood windows with a fixed window above (based on historic photograph, attachment 4). 5) New patio enclosure constructed of ornamental metalwork (to fulfill the projects public art requirement) (Attachment 2, sheet 3). Final design to return to the ARC upon Art Jury approval. 3.2.3 Significant exterior modifications (creek -side) include: 1) Removal of the existing second floor wood buildings and associated staircase and wood support pillars (approved by the CHC) to be replaced with a freestanding steel staircase attached to the structure only at thresholds (Attachment 2, sheets 5, 7 & 8). ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 4 2) Addition of a rooftop patio (with elevator, restroom, storage, and landscaping) including a transparent safety/sound barrier (Attachment 2, sheets 5, 7, 8 & 10). 3.2.4 Significant site modifications (creek -side) iuelude: 1) Removal of the 36-inch diameter Black Walnut tree (approved by the City Arborist) and surrounding raised landscape planter to be replaced with brick pavers and patio dining (Attachment 2, sheet 1, callout 7). 2) Contemporary path lighting between landscape pots (Attachment 2, sheet 1). 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 4.1 Creek -side Elevation (Staircase Design) The CHC at its January 28, 2013 hearing (Attachment 5, CHC Staff Report/Resolution & Minutes) recommended approval of the project to the ARC with an added condition for the ARC to review alternate design possibilities for the rear staircase that will be compatible with the scale of the building and with the transition to the public creek -walk area, and that the staircase design consider added symmetry while increasing the visibility of the buildings brick fagade. Applicant Response: The staircase is now centered in the rear fagade and access to the second floor and rooftop has been repositioned. The design, now includes a vertical steel picket railing (3/4" square bar, 4" spacing, 2" wide by 1z" tall top rail) painted gray. The staircase no longer includes the 40 foot tall fire -rated wall of the previous design because the structure is greater than 10 feet from the property line. (Attachment 2, sheets 4, 5, 7, & 8). Previous Design (01-28-2013) Revised Design (03-18-2013) ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 5 Staff Analysis: The previous staircase design (Attachment 2, sheet 4) was aligned to the left side of the buildings rear elevation and the CHC felt the design/location was unbalanced as compared to the existing wood buildings/wood staircase, which are to be removed. The revised designed centers the staircase in the rear elevation and provides symmetry similar to existing conditions, consistent with CHC direction and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG)1. The revised staircase design is a more open design (with omission of the unbroken fire rated wall), providing interest and allowing for visibility through the staircase at various angles (Attachment 2, sheets 5, 7 & 8), consistent with CHC direction and the CDG1 2. The revised design no longer incorporates a covered staircase as seen on sheet 4 of Attachment 2. Omission of the staircase roof reduces the scale of the staircase (approximate 10 foot max height reduction) and provides better compatibility with the scale of the building, consistent with CHC direction and the CDGI. Staff is concerned with the final leg of the staircase that lands on the ground floor and angles toward the pedestrian pathway easement at the rear of the property. The orientation of this leg of the staircase bisects pedestrian circulation to either patio dining space, and also increases the prominence of the staircase at the creek -walk. The ARC should comment on whether this leg of the staircase should terminate at the ground floor in a more traditional manner (i.e. parallel to the building). 4.2 Rooftop Patio The rooftop patio, enclosed by a transparent glass sound barrier (conditioned to be a minimum of six feet tall, condition #6), will function as an extension of the first floor restaurant and will include rooftop landscaping, dining/lounge space, a restroom, storage, an elevator shaft (finished with clear sealed wood siding) and a steel -supported wood trellis affixed to the elevator shaft (Attachment 2, sheets 4 through 8). The rooftop patio will be set back from the existing brick facade approximately 2 feet. Staff Analysis: The rooftop patio design is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because the rooftop patio is set back from the walls of the second floor below by approximately 2 feet, and the steel -supported wood trellis roof decreases the vertical 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 2.2 A: Keep building elements in proportion. Proportion, continuity, harmony, simplicity, rhythm and balance should prevail in building design. Building elements should be balanced and in proportion to one another. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 2.2-B: Strive for interest, not clutter. The City encourages well -articulated, but not cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall planes unrelieved by shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable. However, too many elevation details can overwhelm, and appear awkward, gaudy, and/or chaotic. s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4.2.B-4e: Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form and mass. ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 6 appearance of the walls4. The clear glass surround is set back from the building's brick facade and is conditioned to be a non -mirrored finish (condition #7). The new work for the rooftop addition is compatible with the massing, scale, and architectural features of the original building. The wood siding (clear sealed siding) used for the proposed elevator shaft and storage rooms (gray painted siding) is chosen for compatibility with the Master List building's brick facade. The use of wood differentiates the new construction from the old while complementing the original building. 4.3 Higuera Street Elevation As approved by the CHC, the applicant plans to reconstruct/restore the second floor windows and the first floor transom windows based on historic photographs. The CHC also recommended approval (without modification) of the applicant's plans for removal of the existing aluminum storefront to be replaced with a storefront system of approximately the same configuration. The new storefront design includes an entry door at the west portion of the frontage in the location of existing display windows; set back approximately 7-feet from the front property line. A wall finished with horizontal wood paneling will separate the main entrance from a painted wood sliding panel door system; set back approximately 9-feet from the front property line. The wood panel doors will separate the indoor dining area from outdoor dining. A ticket booth will be placed in the location of existing display windows at the west portion of the storefront. The portions of fixed storefront will be constructed of bronze anodized aluminum with an 18-inch bulkhead below. The wood panel doors will have an eighteen -inch bottom rail to match the bulkhead height (Attachment 2, title sheet & sheet 2). Staff Analysis: The remodeled storefront is consistent with the CDG because the distinction between the first and upper floors is maintained by providing a more transparent ground floors. The central recess (defined by the horizontal wood paneled wall and ticket booth) provides interest and articulation to the storefront and allows for sidewalk dining along Higuera Street (Attachment 2, title sheet & sheet 2). 4.3.1 Changes to the Higuera Street Elevation after CHC review Bulkhead. Plans reviewed by the CHC included a bulkhead finished with six by eighteen 4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4.2.B-4f.• Use roof overhands, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls. s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4.2.B-4c: Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. 6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4.2. C-5: Wall Surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic. ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 7 inch tiles. The tile bulkhead can still be seen on the title sheet of the project plans (Attachment 2, title sheet). The applicant now proposes a bulkhead of precast concrete to match existing precast concrete on the outer columns of the building (Attachment 2, sheet 2 & 3). Staff is recommending (condition #8) the applicant use a tile bulkhead on this Master List Historic Resource since tile is the more historically appropriate material and was approved by the CHC. Many neighboring buildings have precast concrete or stone on the bulkhead of the building's outer columns with tile used on the storefront's bulkhead. Accent Lighting. The applicant is proposing contemporary gooseneck light fixtures affixed to the transom windows which were not reviewed by the CHC (Attachment 2, sheets 2, 3 & 17). Staff is recommending (condition #9) the applicant use a more historically appropriate (e.g. bell shaped gooseneck) fixture on this primary fagade of a Master List Historic Resource, similar to the futures used on adjacent buildings (e.g. Mother's Tavern, Kevin Main Jewelry). Additionally, the ARC should comment on the applicant's proposal to affix the light fixtures to the transom windows rather than to the brick facade as is traditional. 4.4 Creek -side Lighting City Council Resolution No. 10396 (2012 Series) condition of approval number 27 requires the applicant provide an evaluation of creek -side lighting levels at the back of the subject property and the length of the pedestrian bridge patron route (which may require an upgrade to path lighting) for review by the ARC. Applicant Response: The applicant has submitted an evaluation of creek -side lighting levels which shows maximum existing light intensity at or below one foot-candle (Attachment 2, sheet 16). The applicant is proposing contemporary path lighting on the subject property which will be placed between landscape pots (Attachment 2, sheet 1) and will produce a maximum light intensity of 6 foot-candles (Attachment 2, sheet 16). The applicant is also proposing to attach a railing on the inside of the pedestrian bridge railing with a concealed LED channel for pathway illumination that will produce a minimum light intensity of approximately 0.3 foot-candles (Attachment 2, sheet 16). Staff Analysis: The Police and Public Works departments have reviewed the submitted plans and evaluated the site and pedestrian bridge patron queue after dark. The departments have indicated existing lighting levels are adequate for safety, with the exception of the pedestrian bridge itself and the pedestrian easement across the rear of the subject property. The departments are supportive of the applicant's proposal because lighting levels will produce adequate illumination for pedestrian safety along the pedestrian bridge and pedestrian easement across the rear of the property. Additionally, the City Biologist and Natural Resources Manager reviewed the application and have indicated the proposed lighting will not have a significant effect on the creek habitat. ARC 57-12 (736/738 Higuera) Page 8 The proposed fixtures and lighting levels are consistent with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance, however, staff is recommending (condition #10) the applicant utilize a more durable bollard style light, rather than the contemporary path lighting (Attachment 2, sheet 1), designed for compatibility with the Mission creek -walk area and the historic building. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced Size Project Plans 3. Existing Floor Plans & Elevations 4. Historic Photograph of the Carrisa Building 5. 1-28-2013 CHC Staff Report/Resolution & Minutes 6. Draft Resolution Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board G �9C U •R0110191:4o: U is, Attachment 2 010 4, lb. _MAP vim �. S, cc I IW .0 m I ii Al r— 2 k 7 \ 2 | » ! i { ...;! � n \ | | | f ) ! | � : N ass 0 7miftl AM WME EMIUMMEN t i a i m w W N c J -j q.1 CL L CL a) v-� qJ L 4/1 IOU c _O w 4.. Qj �- Cy L O L Qi V) aj u kn cu I I—N ;g4 hif r c m a 84. 0 o 5?agr�3e� '"10� dN�&�91��a� iyRR�C' L....... I Zl rr--- — - - —I oil a L 0 Q O 0 0 W nl 8 I I � %} 2/ a � \/\ � ■� ■ �\ J£ei kf�k • . g ;!!f � §kk§ �\\) A,3 , aG� mI m2 ��a4z : aWE \ ƒ % k k � IA \ O r V 2 � \ � 4-0 c @ § ■ . � � _ 4 2 s. k,a c rnm-: q _ +-j Q � � _ � .- -■■ §a �� k ! � � m ! ! a ! � �§! � 1a -- � ■■ { � . �■ � •2 k |C ■! _ §■ � � � \ A 0 �\ c 0 ��■E � ¥ 2 � a E � $ 2 ; a @ A � : 4-j � � � �u .ti 4L1 IN o NOMINI A 4 m N 6 a NR�a�All � aaia� No �■ L• a a g Y -'ii A PP I cg L,85 i W \ ) k q;\ I k 2J! r2 !f£ 2 £ a v 2 13 � � 0 CL 0 � � Ch C = x LLJ O ■ :00 ■ -i 0) .c � � � � D 4-J i7n � _ '' •' �� ICJ �I allAlt d MOO [ 11 fo (od r"—"-"9 4 •� u O� i 7° u" V 4 t0 G1 Y V L .+S d Y k [2�4�i .Yin Sib_ ab g yH dm �m pm �q �fA 6m �m m I � 1 I �� Sia Sim Sid am am 3+a ym Ym Mls� �a a AE nm tm lad i ¢ C y 44 . . . � 9 vl '44' J2+'t 52 �+ St� Jih a� �'5n � -th rim swm 'qm Mm Ptp —t& MR ` C pp 1 a u Si4�a S14 �Y at =t i.l 4 �F yy� 0 O ym Pm H� �� Fi R9 dim �.m �m •L I � a n � F a c �L i+5 E a r a c :r+ _rn J 00 r �w ec� ems— � mac, LU go a M (. ! § ! ]�! ]:•�|�; :( Z !, \ ;{, , � easeeee9e&oGmw±9e ) :, � Attachment 4 aaacbment S CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT ITEM # 2 BY: Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner MEETING DATE: January 28, 2013 FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long -Range Planning VIA: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning PROJECT ADDRESS: 736/738 Higuera Street (ARC 57-12) SUBJECT Review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa building as part of the SLO Brewing Company relocation project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission based on findings of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Hamish Marshall: San Luis Downtown Management Representative Carol Florence: Oasis Associates, Inc. Zoning C-D-H (Historic Downtown Commercial) General Plan General Retail Site Area —10,800 square feet Environmental Categorically Exempt from Status environmental review under: Section 15301: Existing Facilities Section 15331: Historical Resource Section 15332 In -Fill Development SITUATION Background The applicant, San Luis Downtown Management, has obtained City Council approval of a Use Permit to operate a nightclub and restaurant/bar at 73 6/73 8 Higuera Street as the new location for SLO Brewing Company, currently located at 1119 Garden Street. The project proposes interior and exterior modification to the Master List Carrisa building to accommodate the new use. ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 2 The City Council reviewed the Use Permit for the proposed relocation September 25, 2012 project on September 25, 2012 and continued the item to the November 20th Council Continuance Council hearing with direction to the applicant and staff for modifications to the project. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conceptually reviewed the project October 22, 2012 on October 22, 2012 to provide feedback to Council on the proposed CHC Conceptual Review interior/exterior modifications to the Carrisa building. The CHC continued -- -- ------ the item with the following direction to the applicant to 1) provide historic background information from a qualified historian on the wood portions of the building at the rear of the site, 2) maintain existing historic building November 20, 2012 Council Approval features on the exterior of the building and adapt the use to fit these features, 3) maintain skylights in existing locations, and 4) coordinate front facade features with historic building features and use historically�� appropriate materials. i�� €,411,"�, On November 20, 2012, the City Council approved the Use Permit!!7T7 allowing SLO Brewing Company's relocation to the Carissa Building. The approval allows a ground floor restaurant/bar/brewery, a second floor February 11, 2013 auditorium, and a rooftop patio. ARC Review EVALUATION Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards Projects involving an alteration to a listed historic resource require CHC review of the proposed work for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines describe principles of historic preservation and direct retention of character -defining features. The Guidelines note that changes to the outside of historic buildings should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible (or complementary) with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building. The proposed project is categorized as "rehabilitation" in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of Historic Properties (Attachment 7, Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Excerpts). Generally, the guidelines call for character -defining features to be preserved and for repairs or replacement of missing features to be done with the same or matching materials. "Alterations or additions should not destroy, radically alter or obscure character defining features or the original architectural character of the historic building". If an addition or a new feature is the only viable alternative, the new work must be compatible with the old, but should not attempt to be an exact match. ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 3 CHC Conceptual Review When the CHC conceptually reviewed the project on October 22, 2012, the Committee provided direction to the applicant and staff (Attachment 5, CHC Staff Report) (Attachment 6, CHC Minutes). The applicant's responses to CHC direction are highlighted in the following paragraphs. Committee Direction #la Provide historic background information from a qualified historian on the wood portions of the building at the rear of the site. Applicant Response #la The applicant has provided a historic background report, prepared by Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants, which reviews removal of the second floor wood buildings at the secondary elevation, and reviews the proposed modifications to the primary elevation (Attachment 2, Historic Report). The historic report discusses contemporary modifications to the second floor wood buildings (based on photographic evidence) which include reconstruction of the roof, staircase and railings, staircase support beams, and flooring (Attachment 2, Historic Report, page 7). The report identifies the primary fagade (Higuera Street) as the significant character defining elevation and identifies the secondary (creek -side) and side elevations as non-contributing to the building's historic character. The report is unable to deten-nine the original construction date of the exterior wood building additions, but identifies them as non -character defining features on a non-contributing secondary fayade that have not taken on significance over time (Attachment 2, Historic Report, page 10). Staff Analysis 41: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommend retaining functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building (Attachment 7, Standards.for Rehabilitation). The Carrisa building was added to the City's Historical Resources Inventory based on architectural significance. The noted significant features include dual toned brick, cornice brackets, dentils, intermediate modillions, and a dentilated string course separating the first and second floors. These significant architectural features appear on the building's primary (Higuera Street) elevation and do not appear on the secondary (creek -side) and side elevations. ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 4 The exterior wood buildings appear as an addition affixed to the outside of the secondary elevation's brickfa�ade and do not include distinctive materials, features, finishes, or construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the building. Although the construction date of the wood buildings cannot be determined, the wood buildings have not acquired significance as character defining features of'the building, and have been altered over time. Therefore, their removal from the building's secondary fagade does not conflict with the recommendations of the ,Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Committee Direction #2: Maintain any existing historic building features on the exterior of the building and adapt the use to fit these features. Applicant Response #2a The applicant has revised the design of the staircase that will replace the wood buildings and has redesigned other rear elevation features as discussed below (see Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 5): October 22, 2012 design a. Revised staircase design including wood plank railings and horizontal wood paneling, vertical garden/green screen climbing up the staircase, and weathering steel panels affixed to the fire rated wall. The proposed staircase will be freestanding and only contact the building through metal thresholds at each landing (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 5). Staff Analysis #2e The revised staircase design is consistent with SOI standards because the new additions, exterior alterations, and new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property. The contemporary design clearly differentiates the new work from the old and is compatible with the buildings historic materials, features and scale, and the proposed freestanding staircase is designed to only contact the building at threshold points. b. Head -to -toe glass surround for the rooftop patio and a lower profile precast concrete wainscot base. The rooftop patio is setback from the edge of the building with ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 5 landscape planters between the brick facade and the rooftop patio (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 10 third floor/roof plan). Staff Analysis #2: The revised rooftop patio design is consistent with the SOI standards because it is set back from the secondary elevations brick wall plane, is not visible from the public right-of-way or primary elevation, and does not damage or obscure character -defining features of the building. c. Infill of existing doors accessing the exterior wood buildings has been redesigned and now includes glass window infill of the doorways without modification to the existing openings (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 5). Staff Analysis #2: The SOI standards recognize the necessity to perform interior/exterior alterations to a historic building to assure its continued use which may include creating new entrances or windows on secondary elevations_ The revised design fills in existing door locations with glass without modification to the size or shape of the existing openings, rather than infilling the openings with brick as previously proposed. The revised design is consistent with the SOI standards for rehabilitation because the existing masonry will not be modified, the new work is differentiated from the old and undertaken in a manner that if removed in the future will not impair the essential form and integrity of the secondary fagade. Committee Direction #3: Maintain skylights in existing locations. Applicant Response #3: Due to the ceiling height of the building's second level and the raised stage in the second floor auditorium, the applicant proposes to raise the roof above the stage to provide room for the stage's associated mechanical equipment and to provide adequate ceiling height for users of the stage. The applicant has revised the plans and now proposes locating the skylight in the same location as existing, atop the raised portion of the roof (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 10). Staff Analysis #3: The revised design is consistent with CHC direction and the SOI standards. Committee Direction #4: Coordinate front facade features with historic building features and use historically -appropriate materials. Applicant Response #4: The applicant proposes removal of the existing aluminum storefront to be replaced with a storefront system of approximately the same configuration. At the October 22, 2012 CHC hearing the Committee commented on a rounded storefront system with a steel awning above. The applicant has revised the plans as discussed below. The new storefront design includes an entry door at the west portion of the frontage in the location of existing display windows. A wall finished with horizontal wood paneling will ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 6 separate the main entrance from a painted wood sliding panel door system. The wood panel doors will separate the indoor dining area from outdoor dining. These wood doors will slide open and dock into a pocket behind a ticket booth which will be placed in the location of existing display windows at the west portion of the storefront. The portions of fixed storefront will be constructed of bronze anodized aluminum and a bulkhead finished with six by eighteen inch tiles. The wood panel doors will have an eighteen inch bottom rail to match the bulkhead height (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheet 3 & 4). The applicant also proposes to rehabilitate or reconstruct the transom windows above the first floor storefront and to replace the existing second floor louvered windows with vertically opening wood windows with a fixed window above. The applicant no longer proposes the steel awning atop the transom windows (Attachment 1, Project Plans, sheets 3 & 4). Staff Analysis #4: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards allow for a new replacement design when a feature of a historic building is missing, provided the new design takes into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself 1. Staff is supportive of the removal and replacement of the existing aluminum storefront system, which is a contemporary addition. The proposed storefront design maintains the same approximate configuration of the existing storefront with approximately a nine foot recess providing the same spatial relationship as existing. The new construction will not destroy historic materials or features and is compatible with the historic materials, features, and scale of the building, consistent with the SOI standards. The proposed replacement windows at the second level of the Higuera Street facade appear to be an accurate replacement based on a photo of the building from the 1950's (Attachment 4, Historic Photo, consistent with the SOI Standards. SUMMARY Staff supports removal of the exterior wood buildings because their removal does not constitute the removal of character defining features of the historic building. Staff is also supportive of the revisions to the rear staircase, rooftop patio, rear facade infill windows, and replacement of the aluminum storefront system, restoration/reconstruction of the transom windows and replacement of the second floor windows. Staff finds the project revisions consistent with Cultural Heritage Committee direction and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features. ARC 57-12 736/738 Higuera Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission based on findings of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Plans, Reduced Size 2. Historic Background Report, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants 3. Existing Elevations 4. Historic Photo (1950's) 5. October 22, 2012 CHC Staff Report 6. October 22, 2012 CHC Minutes 7. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Excerpts 8. Resolution Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE MASTER LIST CARRISA BUILDING IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SLO BREWING COMPANY RELOCATION PROJECT, C-D-H ZONE, 736/738 HIGUERA STREET, ARC 57-12 WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 22, 2012, for the purpose of considering Planning Application ARC 57-12, conceptual review of modifications to the Master List Carrisa building and continued the item with direction to the applicant for project revisions, to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 28, 2013, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final approval; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes the following findings: As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living, working, or visiting the site or the vicinity because modifications to the structure conform to the California Building Code. 2. The proposed modifications to the Master List building, which include the removal of elements that do not contribute to the historic significance of the building are consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards since character defining features will be retained. 3. The proposed repair and replacement of the storefront and historic windows is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards since historic features will be retained and replacement of missing features will be substantiated by photographic evidence. Resolution No.[ ] (736/738 Higuera Street) Page 2 4. The proposed new construction is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity within the Downtown -Historic District. 5. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Section 2. Environmental Review. Categorically exempt under the following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project proposes the relocation of a business into an existing building with no overall increase in floor area of that existing building; Section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) because modifications to the building are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; and Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects) because the project is within City limits, consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend approval of the proposed project (ARC 57-12) with incorporation of the following conditions: Conditions 1. Prior to a building plan check submittal, plans in full conformance with this approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Prior to demolition of interior partition walls and wood building additions at rear of building, a complete photo documentation of these features shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department. Intact windows and fixtures shall be preserved and recycled and/or re -used. 3. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, or other conditions of approval, must be approved by the Director, Cultural Heritage Committee, or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. Resolution No.[ ] (736/738 Higuera Street) Page 3 4. Plans submitted for building plan check shall clearly identify all colors and materials on elevation drawings. 5. Plans submitted for building plan check shall include complete window specifications for any replacement windows and shall include window styles that replicate original size and appearance of original windows. 6. Plans submitted for building plan check shall include a final landscaping plan, including irrigation details. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees and vines with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 7. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and shall be downward facing, fully recessed, and shielded to avoid light trespass and adverse impacts to visibility of the night sky consistent with Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 8. The applicant shall provide for review by the Architectural Review Commission alternate design possibilities for the rear staircase that will be compatible with the scale of the building and will meet the public objectives of the creek -walk area. The staircase design should consider added symmetry while increasing the visibility of the buildings brick fagade. Code Requirements The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the architect a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. Provide an accessible route of travel connecting all elements and spaces including elevated Fermenting Area on First Floor, elevated Booth Seating and Sound Booth on Second Floor. CBC 1103B.1 2. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 3. Rooms or areas containing controls for air -handling systems, automatic fire - protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Resolution No.[ ] (736/738 Higuera Street) Page 4 4. A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 5. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. In addition, a wet or combination standpipe shall be required in the front stairway with outlets on the second floor and roof. A fire alarm system will be required for this project. 6. Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC. On motion by Committee Member , seconded by Committee Member and on the following roll call vote AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28t" day of January, 2013, Phil Dunsmore, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Attachment 5, SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES January 28, 2013 ROLL CALL: Present: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime Hill, Buzz Kalkowski, Patti Taylor, and Chairperson Enrica Costello Absent: Vice -Chair Bob Pavlik Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Marcus Carloni, and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented, MINUTES: Minutes of December 17, 2012, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: Dean Miller, San Luis Obispo, requested the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to place the following concerns on the next agenda as soon as it was convenient: 1) The Barneberg house at 550 Dana to discuss the removal from the City's Master List properties. 2) Staff to comment on the findings which determined the modifications at Bameberg house to be "minor" and exempt from review by the CHC and ARC. Joseph Carotenuti, San Luis Obispo, voiced his opinion that the historic resources in the city are being compromised due to unclear guidelines. Mr. Carotenuti agreed with Mr. Miller to place the Barneberg House on the next agenda. Randal Cruikshanks, San Luis Obispo, endorsed the public comments. He encouraged the effort to investigate where the CHC is failing the heritage of the community. Bob Vesselly, San Luis Obispo, endorsed comments made. The change made to the Barneberg house has changed the whole facade of the house. Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, welcomed the public and the CHC to be present at the public meeting for the Historic Context Statement to be held at 5:30 p.m. on February 5rh at the Senior Center at Mitchell Park. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 75 Higuera Street. ARC 108-12; Review of new storefront windows along the Higuera Frontage of the Pacific Coast Center; C-S-MU zone; SLOP CC, LP, applicant (Pam Ricci) CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 2 Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, introduced Graduate Intern Rachel Cohen, who assisted with the project, and then presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which recommends approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. In a response to a question from Committee Member Taylor, Mr. Dunsmore reiterated that the site is on both the City's Master mist and the National Register. He noted that most of the original structures on site were demolished, but that a few character - defining features of the reconstructed front building were retained. The site is significant because of its ties to the Pacific Coast Railway and new contemporary structures borrow from the architectural character and history of earlier site development. Committee Member Brajkovich questioned why the larger windows were requested. Ms. Ricci indicated that it was to add light to the interior and to add street presence. Rob Rossi, applicant, noted that the larger windows were requested to increase visibility for retail tenants. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Kalkowski supported the need for the larger windows, noting that he preferred a more open design with the head lowered below the eaves. He suggested a plaque to commemorate the historic significance of the site. Committee Member Taylor concurred with Committee Member Kalkowski regarding the historical plaque and supported staff's recommendation. Committee Member Brajkovich supported the larger windows with a cross mullion. Committee Member Dandekar supported the staff's recommendation. She mentioned that the reconstructed building honors the site in a contemporary way and that the ARC should decide on final design details of the windows. Committee Member Hill stated that the height element of the warehouse elevation is affected by the addition of the larger windows and that she did not support the requested changes. She added that a historian should have been consulted regarding the changes since the building is on the National Register. Committee Member Dandekar questioned the basis that the site was on the National Registry list. Chairperson Costello supported reducing the size of the windows to make them in better proportion with the building wall. CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 3 There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Bra'kovich seconded by Committee Member Kalkowski, to recommend approval of the proposed windows in the facade of the Higuera Street elevation with the following conditions: 1) The proposed new storefront windows shall be modified to lower the head of the windows so that they are smaller in scale and more proportional to the building wall, The ARC shall determine the appropriate grid detail for windows. 2) The applicant shall add„ a_historical plaque or monument to the property to commemorate that historical significance of the site. AYES: Committee Members Costello NOES: Committee Member Hill RECUSED: None ABSENT: Vice -Chair Pavlik The motion passed on a 5:1 vote Brajkovich, Dandekar, Kalkowski, Taylor and 2. 736 Higuera Street. ARC 57-12; Review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa building as part of the SLO Brewing Company relocation project; C-D-H zone; San Luis Downtown Management, applicant (Marcus Carloni) Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission based on findings of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard's and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Carloni addressed the points made by the Committee which consisted of: 1. Historic background information provided by qualified historian in regard to the wood portions at the rear of building 2. Maintain existing historic building features on the exterior of the building 3. Maintain skylights in existing locations 4. Coordinate front facade features with historic building features Carol Florence, applicant representative, and Brian Ridley, applicant architect, discussed the modifications made to the design based on the Committee's direction at the October 22, 2012 Conceptual CHC review hearing. Mr. Ridley, in response to CHC question, stated the central post at the Higuera Street elevation is the existing structural support for the upper floor. Mr. Ridley also stated an interior routing of the proposed rear staircase was explored but deemed infeasible due to space constraints and building code requirements. Chairperson Costello asked for clarification of the proposed material below the rooftop patio glass surround. Brian stated it was concrete. PUBLIC COMMENTS: CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 4 David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, made a general comment that decisions made that compromise historical preservation is because ground rules have not been set for the committees. He stated that making changes to the creek area which effect architectural details are important; the history is the entire area. He is not supportive of the proposed staircase at the rear of the building. Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, commented that each panel should come down to be symmetrical to the columns on the front facade. She is not in favor of the proposed staircase. She stated it is modern and it should be located on the interior. Elizabeth Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated the original staircase is historical ly significant. She concurred with David Brodie's comment that the ambiance is the entire area. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, could not say when the wood building features were added and several in the community believe the staircase was original to the building. He stated the proposed stair is contemporary and will compromise the building. Linda Groover, San Luis Obispo, stated the building is on the Master List and putting a modern staircase on the rear of the building is a character -defining feature. Dixie Cliff, San Luis Obispo, does not support the proposed staircase. Joe Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated that the Committee will need to be scrupulous honoring history and be attentive to all items. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stated the Historian can phrase and interpret in different ways, especially when the developer is paying the bill. Committee Member Hill commented that the Historians hired by the applicant will not jeopardize their reputation by going in favor of the applicant for this project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS. Committee Member Dandekar questioned Carloni stated the height is labeled at 41 building can be 50 feet. the height of the proposed staircase. Mr. feet and the maximum height of adjacent Committee Member Costello stated that the existing staircase had been reconstructed as of 1986. Chairperson Costello was concerned with the front facade; specifically the second floor entrance doors. She concurred with the public that it should be symmetrical. Mr. Carloni indicated that shifting the second floor entry doors for symmetry was not proposed because the doors are proposed to remain in their existing location. CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 5 Committee Member Brajkovich is in favor of the front facade. He indicated that the rear elevation is what should be discussed. Committee Member Hill is supportive of the proposed building. Committee Member Dandekar is concerned about the staircase being proposed. She stated it will set the tone for any other proposed buildings in the area which will cause a discord to the creek area. She is supportive of the front facade. Committee Member Taylor concurred with Committee Member Dandekar's concern. There was a general discussion between staff and committee members on whether the staircase is a character -defining feature and if the design of the stair should be left to the Architectural Review Commission. There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Dandekar, seconded by Committee Member Hill to recommend approval of the project based on findings, and subject to conditions with an added condition for the ARC to review alternate design possibilities for the rear staircase that will be compatible with the scale of the building and with the transition to the Public creek -walk area. The staircase design should consider added symmetry while increasing the visibility of the buildings brick fa ade. AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Hill, Kalkowski, Taylor, and Costello NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Vice -Chair Pavlik The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 3. 1300 Bishop Street. CHC 2-13; Review of Terrace Hill for placement on the Contributing List of Historic Resources; R-1-PD zone, Buzz Kalkowski (CHC), applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the City Council add Terrace Hill to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Buzz Kalkowski, Committee Member of the CHC, highlighted detailed points from presentation as to why Terrace Hill should be placed on the Contributing Properties list. Committee Member Kalkowski recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest because his residence is located on the side of Terrace Hill. Committee Member Brajkovich questioned what the purpose was to bring it into historical context if it's designated as open space. Mr. Kalkowski stated the property is CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 6 zoned as R-1 and including the property on the Contributing List will allow for further review in the histories of the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Karen Randall, San Luis Obispo, questioned Mr. Kalkowski that because he lives in the neighborhood if he will be benefiting in any way. Mr. Kalkowski indicated there is no relation based on where he lives. It's another 100 feet above his residence. Chairperson Costello stated that placing this property on the Contributing List will not affect neighboring property it will be an additional protection on what can be built on the property. Will Powers, San Luis Obispo, stated that he has continuing objection to the process of the committee because there is no mediator from the City versus public comments. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by Committee Member Taylor to recommend that the City Council add Terrace Hill to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, based on„findings and subject to conditions. AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Hill, Taylor, and Costello NOES: None RECUSED: Committee Member Kalkowski ABSENT: Vice -Chair Pavlik The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff a. Phil Dunsmore presented the agenda forecast 5. Committee Chairperson Costello was confused about the anger from the public at the beginning of the meeting and the item that was discussed. She asked how things can be done at the City level without the committee knowing about it. Phil Dunsmore stated that staff will bring this matter back to the next CHC meeting. There was a general discussion between staff and committee members in regard to the public comments at the beginning of the meeting. CHC Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 7 Committee Member Taylor pointed out the history center is going to have Tuesday talk on February 12th at 11:15 a.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m_ Respectfully submitted by, Dawn Rudder Recording Secretary Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on February 25, 2013. Ryaj7(B efz Su ervising Administrative Assistant Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. #######-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A REMODEL AND ADDITIONS TO THE MASTER LIST CARRISA BUILDING AT 736/738 MONTEREY STREET (C-D-H ZONE; ARC 57-12) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 28, 2013, for the purpose of considering Planning Application ARC 57- 12, review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa building; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee determined that the project was consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards and recommended approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission with the Commission to review a revised design for the rear (creek -side) staircase; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 18, 2013, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final approval; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the proposed project (ARC 57-12), based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding development. 2. As conditioned, the project design maintains consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines, specifically CDG 2.2-A/B & 4.2 B/C providing guidance for modifications to building in the Downtown. 3. The proposed modifications to the Master List building, which include the removal of elements that do not contribute to the historic significance of the building are consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards since character defining features will be retained. 4. The proposed repair and replacement of the storefront and historic windows is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards since historic features will be retained and replacement of missing features will be substantiated by photographic evidence. 5. The proposed new construction is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing .and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity within the Downtown -Historic District. Resolution No. ARC-####-13 736/738 Higuera, ARC 57-12 Page 2 6. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 7. The City Arborist has approved the removal of the Slack Walnut tree at the rear of the property because the tree is dying/damaged beyond reclamation due to root rot and internal decay. The project is categorically exempt under the following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project proposes the relocation of a business into an existing building with no overall increase in floor area of that existing building, Section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) because modifications to the building will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects) because the project is within City limits, consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARC 57-12), with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning Prior to demolition of interior partition walls and wood building additions at rear of building, a complete photo documentation of these features shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department. Intact windows and fixtures shall be preserved and recycled and/or re -used. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include photographs/narratives on existing significant interior features to be retained/protected during construction. 2. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, or other conditions of approval, must be approved by the Director, Cultural Heritage Committee, or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. Plans submitted for building plan check shall clearly identify all colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include complete window specifications for any replacement windows and shall include window styles that replicate original size and appearance of original windows. Resolution No, ARC-####-13 736/738 Higuera, ARC 57-12 Page 3 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a final landscaping plan, including irrigation details. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees and vines with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 6. The proposed transparent glass surround for the rooftop patio shall be no less than 6 feet from rooftop patio finished floor to the top of the glass surround. 7. The proposed transparent glass surround for the rooftop patio shall be non -mirrored glass. 8. The proposed storefront bulkhead shall be finished with decorative tile, the precast concrete bulkhead shall not be allowed. 9. The applicant shall use a more historically appropriate (e.g. bell shaped gooseneck) light fixture on the Higuera Street elevation. This light fixture shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. 10. The proposed contemporary path light fixture at the rear of the property (creel -side) shall not be allowed. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a durable bollard style light designed for compatibility with the Mission creek -walk area and the historic building. 11. If installed lighting levels are found to be inadequate or unsafe the applicant shall return to the ARC or Community Development Director with a proposal to upgrade path lighting. 12. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and shall be downward facing, fully recessed, and shielded to avoid light trespass and adverse impacts to visibility of the night sky consistent with Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. A photometric plan for proposed lighting at the rear (creek -side) of the building shall be included in the submittal. 13. Mechanical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line of site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. 14. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right-of-way. Fire 15. Rooms or areas containing controls for air -handling systems, automatic fire -protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Resolution No. ARC-####-13 Page 4 736/738 Higuera, ARC 57-12 16, A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 17. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. In addition, a wet or combination standpipe shall be required in the front stairway with outlets on the second floor and roof. A fire alarm system will be required for this project. 18. Openings in the exterior wall adjoining the exterior stairway shall be limited to those necessary for egress. Public Works 19. Compensatory tree planting for the removal of the Black Walnut tree will be required as provided in the City's Tree Regulations (M.C. Chapter 12.24), to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 20. The proposed lighting upgrades along the public pedestrian bridge shall be shown on the building plan submittal. A separate stand-alone plan shall also be prepared for separate permit issuance related to the City owned parcel and to archive the proposed improvements in the City records. A record plan will be required at the completion of the construction. 21. Any proposed work or construction staging on the City owned parcel and/or within public easements shall be approved to the satisfaction of Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Public pedestrian easements shall remain open unless otherwise approved by the City. Advanced noticing for temporary partial or complete closures of pedestrian access may be required per City Standards, 22. The building plan submittal shall clearly show and reference all public and private easements. The proposed fixed patio improvements and/or portable tables and chairs along with the detailed event queuing area shall be shown and noted on the plans. All proposed improvements and patio use areas shall honor the existing public pedestrian easement and lighting/landscape easement unless otherwise approved by agreement between the City and property owner. 23. Any agreement or modification to the existing easement(s) shall be resolved and/or recorded prior to building permit issuance. Phased minor permits may be processed prior to said resolution or recordation. 24. This property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and is bordered by an AE floodzone along San Luis Creek and an AO (2' depth) zone along the Higuera Street frontage. As a Master List historic building, floodproofing of the building envelope may not be required. All new building service equipment is required to be protected or located above the respective Base Flood Elevations (BFE's) affecting this building. Voluntary Resolution No. ARC-####-13 736/738 Higuera, ARC 57-12 Page 5 floodproofing of the shell is recommended for protection of the structure, reduced flood insurance premiums and to simplify the protection of the internal building service equipment. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18"' day of March, 2013. Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission city of Meeting Date: March 18, 2013 mosmLAm sAn tui owspo Item Number: 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a two-story 37,000 square foot office building and site improvements. PROJECT ADDRESS: 892 Aerovista BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166) O;lo_ E-mail: bleveille@sloeity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 142-12 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner{ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 3) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Matt Quaglino Representative Dustin Pires, MW Architecture Zoning BP (Business Park Zone) General Plan Business Park Site Area 110,465 square feet (2.54 acres) Environmental Exempt from environmental Status review under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development Projects. The applicant is proposing to develop a two-story 37,000 square -foot office building at the northwest corner of Aerovista Place and Broad. Street near the airport. Staff has found that the project is generally consistent with applicable design guidelines, but has raised concerns with the height of the building parapet and the need to improve pedestrian circulation in the parking lot. The applicant is seeking final approval of project plans. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The ARC's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for commercial project design and design guidelines for the Airport Area Specific Plan. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The project site is located at the northwest corner of Aerovista Place and Broad Street within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Properties to the north are within County jurisdiction and are developed with a mix of service commercial uses and offices. Parcels immediately to the west are vacant and properties to the south across Aerovista Place are developed with multi - tenant office buildings. ARC 142-12, 892 Aerovista Place Page 2 2.1. Site Information/Settiina Site Size 110,465 s.f. (2.54 acres) Present Use & Development vacant Topography Gentle slope down from the southeast to the northwest corner; slope bank down from Broad Street. Access Two driveways off of Aerovista. Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Auto Body repair and paint use, County land use (CS) South, Various office uses Incl. Regional Water Board, zoned Business Park (BP) East: Service Commercial uses, zoned Service -Commercial (CS) West: Vacant, zoned Business Park (BP) 2.2 Project Description The applicant's proposal is to develop the vacant 2,5-acre property with a 36,833 square foot office building. The proposed structure is two stories and located in the southeast portion of the project site with an outdoor plaza located near the corner of Broad Street and Aerovista Place. An area is reserved to the north of the proposed structure for an additional 8,000 square feet of floor area in a future expansion. Access to the project site is provided via two driveways on Aerovista Place into the parking lot area which contains 161 parking spaces. Figure 1. South Perspective The building design is a functional contemporary design which is rectilinear in massing. The project description states that the contemporary design is intended to complement the modern architectural aesthetic of the airport area. Exterior materials include hardiboard siding, smooth plaster, and a steel entry awning with a natural rusted finish. Storefront glazing in aluminum frames is proposed on all elevations, Proposed colors include stucco colored in several grey shades and charcoal grey fiber cement siding. The main entry element includes a porte-cochere design for a covered entry which also functions as a second level deck. Vehicle access to the site is from a one-way and two-way drive from Aerovista Place, Pedestrian ARC 142-12; 892 Aerovista Place Page 3 access is provided from sidewalks around the building and an outdoor plaza is located at the southeast corner of the project site near the main building entry. Bioswales are provided around the project site and there is a proposed storm water basin located at the northwest corner of the project site. The landscape plan emphasizes drought tolerant and native or naturalized species. 2.3 Pro'ect Statistics Statistics Item Proposed' Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yard setback (Parking lots) 10 feet 10 feet Street Yard setback (Buildings) 49 feet (Aerovista) 42 feet (Broad) 16 feet Interior yard setback (Parking Lots) 10 feet 5 feet Interior yard setback (Buildings) 88 feet (north) & 140 feet (east) 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 34 feet 45 feet Coverage (bldgs., driveways, parking) 76% 80% Parking Spaces 1 161 149 (including future phase) Landscaping 1 24% 20% minimum Notes: 1. Applicant's project plans submitted 1-24-13 2. City Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Community Design Guidelines The following applicable guidelines from Chapter 3.4, Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses, are highlighted followed by staff s analysis of the project's design consistency with the cited guidelines. 3A.C. Offices. Office structures differ from other commercial buildings in that their intensity of use is lower while building scale is typically larger, primary activities are not limited to the first floor, and there are fewer entries along building perimeters. Without careful attention in design to building form and mass, and street level features, these structures can impair the pedestrian orientation of a streetscape. L Site planning. Office site plans should incorporate the following features. a. Office buildings should be "built to" the minimum required front setback. b. Surface parking should be located towards the rear of the site or at the side of the building, with bicycle parking convenient to building entrances. c. Multi -story buildings should not be placed adjacent to residential private open space areas (e.g., rear yards). d. The primary building entrance should face the street. Staff Analysis: Parking is located to the side and rear of the building and the primary building entrance and plaza area faces Aerovista Place. The building is located along the ARC 142-12; 892 Aerovista Place Page 4 Broad Street frontage close to the development limits since there is an "offer of dedication" which extends approximately 25 feet onto the property. The project site planning is consistent with the above guideline. 2. Building design. Office buildings should be designed to comply with the following guidelines. a. Depending upon adjacent land uses and building scale and mass, it may be appropriate to place the first floor at the minimum setbacks, with upper floors set back further. b. Building surfaces over two stories high or 40 feet in length should provide vertical and horizontal wall plane offsets. c. Office structure facades should have extensive window areas. d The primary building entrance should be designed as a highly visible and significant architectural feature. Staff Analysis: The proposed building's scale and mass is consistent with those of surrounding buildings. The building does not exceed 40 feet in height and upper floors do not need to be set back further. The primary building entrance feature is the covered entry feature adjacent to the plaza area which also has a deck feature for the second floor. This feature effectively conveys the primary building entrance as the main architectural feature of the building. ■ 2.2 - Building Design A. Keep building elements in proportion. Proportion, continuity, harmony, simplicity, rhythm and balance should prevail in building design. Building elements should be balanced and in proportion to one another, Architectural feature requiring modification R{n - ----> -- IrE* Q6 Figure 2. South perspective and partial west elevation Staffs Analysis: The building generally is well articulated with significant window coverage, offsets, and consistent material and color applications on all four elevations. However, the central projecting cornices with the address numbers on the' north and south elevation appear out of scale with the overall roofline around the building (Figure 2, above), Staff recommends ARC 142-12; 892 Aerovista Place Page 5 lowering the parapet height and removing the central cornices, which extend out beyond the adjacent wall an additional three feet, to achieve a more balanced and proportioned appearing structure. In general, the parapets appear excessively high in relation to the floor heights and window sizes. The purpose of the central protruding cornice seems to be as a backdrop to highlight wall signage. Since walls signs above 25 feet in height are not permitted by the Sign Regulations as discussed below in Section 3.3, the 36-foot high "892" signs would not be allowed. To address these design concerns, staff is recommending Condition No. 3 that the parapet height be reduced by a minimum of 2.5 feet and the central cornices be removed. 3.2 Airport Area Specific Plan Guidelines • Goal 5.1: A continuous, well-defined streetscape edge that unifies and enhances the character of the development areas and that supports pedestrian activity through its site planning and design. Guidelines A. Buildings are encouraged to front directly on the landscaped setback adjacent to the street right-of-way, rather than locating parking between the street and building. B. Parking should be located behind or along the sides of buildings. C. The main entrance to any building with frontage on the primary street serving the project should be oriented toward the primary street. Staff Analysis: As discussed above in the Community Design Guidelines analysis, the buildings presence at the corner of the project site and parking location is consistent with the above AASP guideline. ■ Standards 5.1.3 Direct pedestrian access shall be provided from the street serving the project to the main entrance. 5.1.4 Buildings shall have architecturally articulated entry features facing the street. Staff Analysis: The project provides pedestrian access from Aerovista which is separated from vehicle circulation (see sheet L1.0). The landscape plan depicts the separated path but other plan sheets do not include this feature. Staff has recommended Condition No. 4 that other plan set sheets submitted for construction approvals include this separated path from Aerovista Place. • Goal 5.3: Attractive and comfortable outdoor pedestrian use areas near or adjacent to buildings. Guidelines A. The provision of open space amenities such as plazas and seating areas accessible to employees, clients and visitors is encouraged at building entries and adjacent to buildings. ARC 142-12; 892 Aerovista Place Page 6 B. Attractive paving, plantings, and site furniture should be provided at entries anti outdoor use areas. C Outdoor use areas should be located away from, or at least screened or buffered from, parking lots, driveways, and industrial activity areas that are incompatible with or unappealing to pedestrian use. Where development sites are adjacent to open space areas, employee lunch areas should be located to take advantage of views out to open space. D. Outdoor employee use areas should be sited and designed to ensure comfortable climatic conditions for their users, including shelter from wind and appropriate seasonal balance of solar access and shade. Staff Analysis: The outdoor plaza area adjacent to the main building entrance is accessible to employees, clients, and visitors. The outdoor use area is separated from the parking lot and adjacent streets and there are no nearby industrial activities which would be incompatible with the outdoor use. The plaza area and deck above the entry feature provides excellent views of the hills to the east and southeast. 3.3 Pedestrian circulation The proposed project provides a walkway separated from the one-way vehicle entrance drive from Aerovista Place (see plan sheet L1.0). The separated walkway is shown on landscape plans but is not reflected on civil sheets and site plans. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure this feature is reflected on plans submitted for construction approval (Condition #4). Sidewalks and a meandering path on the east elevation of the building also link the parking lot, outdoor plaza and building entries. Revisions are required to provide for safe and convenient access to the building from the westerly parking bays. As currently designed, the two parking bays are oriented parallel to the building with a landscaped bioswale separating them. The design creates a situation where customers and employees would need to walk between parked cars and cross a bioswale to access the building. Staff is recommending that delineated paths be created across the bioswale which separates the parking bays. As shown in Figure 3 below, two delineated paths could be created by converting five parking spaces to clearly delineated pedestrian access points. Staff is recommending Condition No. 5 that at least two crossing points with alternative paving material and lighting be added to provide access to the building from the parking lot area west of the building. With conversion of the parking spaces, the project would continue to meet office parking requirements of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. ARC 142-12; 892, Aerovista Place Page 7 Figure 3. Site plan 3.4 Signage Signage included for review is the large address sign on the south and north elevation and a monument sign. General notes (sheet DP4) state that the Signage shown is schematic only and that a separate sign application will address signage for the entire project. Any future sign proposals will have to be found consistent with the Sign Regulations and the architectural style of the building. Based on the schematic sign plans, staff has identified needed modifications for the project to be consistent with Sign Regulations and guidelines for signs discussed in the Community Design Guidelines and Airport Area Specific Plan. As noted earlier in Section 3.1, the large "892" sign shown on the front elevation is located too high on the building face. Sign Regulations do not allow any sign to exceed 25 feet above the adjacent grade. The top of the "892" sign shown on plans is approximately 36 feet high. The five-foot high lettering does not appear proportional to the scale of the building in comparison to windows and floor heights. With the recommended further reduction in the parapet height, the proposed five-foot high letters would appear even more out of scale. The Airport Area Specific Plan sign standards state that signs shall be limited to major site entries from public roadways. The sign shown on the south elevation is not consistent with this standard. Since the final tenant mix in the project is not known, or has not been identified in the proposal, staff recommends deferring final signage review. Staff recommends Condition No. 7 which requires that a separate sign submittal be reviewed by the Director for consistency with Sign Regulations and Airport Area Specific plan standards for signs, Internally illuminated cabinet signs or channel letters are not consistent with AASP standards for signs. Sign lighting will have to be externally illuminated or may consist of opaque halo backlit letters. ARC 142-12; 892 Aerovista Place Page 8 3.5 Landscaping The Airport Area Specific Plan contains guidelines which encourage landscaping with native and naturalized plant species which reflect the natural and agricultural landscape of the area. The submitted conceptual landscape plan includes a design goal statement which summarizes the design's conformance with Community Design Guidelines and the Airport Area Specific Plan (sheet L 1.0). The landscape plan provides various plantings with low water use and that are in keeping with the natural landscape of the area. Consistent with guidelines, lawns or turf are not included in the plan in favor of low water use groundcover and natural bunchgrasses such as feather reed grass and deer grass. 4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as conditions of approval. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced size project plans 3. Draft Resolution Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans +t p=a77{'{'qq�►��i Attachment 2 yr``��wbV ��'�� Y�'q.R9iP4i�I1lNW l i o-t )I.Yd Y1.NOi19Yl0■ ��m�#�!'7i I (�� R i fit s:�:°°� ranavlsinoaavaes �L�•1 b Im ; ##i°i E 3�Fmt��ff��ii Moil 1a11 oil !! ! H11 � � o��' AC M�it'6xe3 M1 €", IN1t }� �} S ` u2 W IL i j .w a a 0 En W J z z .Ct w < 00 I— Ln H 9 �a fill gx1p;; 1F'I m" e10 m; g! XW4V�IAO RV Z:ue gRG.�V _�� ea m � r A&} ©5NIallng AraNV s _t om © / }` a. ! 6 ( -- \ / ; y : ,!z! » �l,sl�,z!! 1.�= ..... %;;.r.:=r « « ! • - :;b>!!.;! _ »:!)/!!§5 .. / \](� a , mlZe!]:]/ „ a:.,. . })({§p}!;) » §;!y J G ! u !_., -..... _.,..r.. ,., \,_,_:_, .. ,�,<. . , ,,,{};4 .»2 : , ,.o. < ! ❑ El c ?$F rex s ZM � 33 tl, bd51HO SICA'S wqS � �� o sm JlMgd gY5U0?J3q ZHE a i��"�F�p e��➢ i'M �fl 3 .r; i�s�i��%➢s➢l®® �F ®a i��-�t = �32H 9 $r =s 73 aq wia�ine nnawn'.9[�7➢®t638�Awutl6�➢6€7d-d�e�dls Ss e�� € w- ,r au H`renere__ 000000o as o = = _ :I'liI > ; > > - ��(;IIw e I a Y (-' gal Ms01A .v` a. e},itvmabls> t I r1 sio-zi4-sso �N�y mewlq;. n ( w } � J� ° � & ) : — __� ,: m , }\ {(r !\$$\J}s=am«mmm oa »»a e - i HHO ° % ! - ■ ' ' _ :�- s� �(� \ � \ J :�- .G-- ,�- .�- {�2 COD ) gyj -m _, 11 | _ \ IL k Np law u • IN NEVdV.L MON3V369 J�w SNOLLVAB moiu3lxm n NOMORM11-0 �}}(� � LLI J -j LLI ix D LLI 0 U) 2 Ej- Tip, sa is MliVdV.LSlAOU3VZ6S SMOUVA3,13 aoRIMIX3 .......... .. ......... .. 4, L11 LLI ul LLI LLI LLI < El.......... LLI loll§ � -� • � )• �� Q �� ' ` _Vd VISIAOURY _e § /| __ _ _. nm__._ | | / S ! / } ( § ; § . §§ to Hill � t ! 13L Hill r � | *(/ slrv.L3cl ! ! -- _ :b,��■■]|| C:, | �( m gig ) . z > | ! �!�°`�� ■ § | � § } |.|| � � | � • ! y h| � . | §| } � I /\ w1 � • , � M3'OtlilYO nm NYC 1l11��}}}jii [[fi11 �� dcml 4` 33� ttiit � �.,.,,.` ;:�:Y°3 �+aVdV.46lAaL13VS<6B gl�j�EEi# 11�i "�:�;., �vsk�a,n4nvKr i�ltl-Id9hiI1Fi01"I"SLLtlW�Fi."lS !�Si��1�[�'j f�� p �niiiltll ` ,1„ z a d u LL lu IL N N x u d F z I 0 z F z 47 J u W r U N r [ 33r,d Y'J#uOupV z$9 Nr NOI.Ltl91Laf �871+IUNV'Id kmv W1 wjYaad }I !lli!{ �>!f 1Y ON1Q11l��hYljNyWW9� �' �}y E 3 �, I a �;1► i° (m A-4 ,H) io®a1S PeOAR q p M EL 0. Nil m W Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 00-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GRANTING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 37,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 892 AEROVISTA PLACE (B-P ZONE; ARC 142-12) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering project plans for final approval in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 19, 2013, pursuant to an application filed by Matt Quaglino, applicant, for the purpose of considering ARC 142-12, a proposal to construct a new building at Aerovista Place; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findin)zs. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARC 142-12), based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding development. 2. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines for Commercial projects. 3. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with Design Guidelines of the Airport Area Specific Plan. 4. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site's Business Park Zoning designation, and the project is consistent with relevant Zoning and development regulations and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 5. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32 (Section 15332), Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines since the project meets the following criteria: (a) The project is consistent with its general plan designation and applicable general plan policies. (b) The project site is within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Resolution No. ARC-49#4-13 892 Aerovista Place, ARC 142-12 Page 2 (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission., as deemed appropriate. 2. The color board for the project presented at the meeting was supported by the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed -on product and have a smooth hand -finish (steel -troweled) to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 3. Plans submitted for construction approval shall include modifications from plans reviewed by the ARC which reduce the parapet height a minimum of 2.5 feet. Parapet modifications shall also include removal of the projecting central cornices on the north and south elevations. 4. Plans submitted for construction approval shall include the separated pedestrian path shown adjacent to the one-way drive on landscape plans. All civil sheets and site plans shall be consistent and include the pathway. 5. Plans submitted for construction approval shall include at least two pedestrian access points through the parking lot area west of the building which lead to the sidewalk area and main entrance on the west elevation of the building. The access points shall provide crossing points across the bioswale and be delineated with alternative paving or stamped concrete. The landscape planters in the northerly parking lot area shall be separated to provide planting areas after each six parking spaces. 6. One of the parking spaces at the end of the bay in the northerly parking lot area shall be converted into a "turn -around" area for vehicles to turn around if all spaces are occupied. 7. A comprehensive sign program for the project shall be developed to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the Resolution No. ARC-9444-13 892 Aerovista Place, ARC 142-12 Page 3 sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the building and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's setting. Signs shall utilize more innovative and attractive solutions such as raised, backlit metal letters, halo lighting or external lighting rather than plastic cabinet signs or channel letters with internal illumination. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the design characteristics of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 8. Site furniture shown on ARC approved plans shall be installed/located in the outdoor use area prior to occupancy. 9. The locations of all wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall -mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut -sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall - mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." 10. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line -of -site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 11. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. 12. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 13. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double check assembly shall be located in the street Resolution No. ARC-####-13 892 Aerovista Place, ARC 142-12 Page 4 yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping, and if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 14. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycles shall be parked vertically or horizontally with at least the rear tire resting at floor level. Peak racks (Peakracks.com) or inverted "U" racks can be used for short term bicycle parking. Inverted "U" racks used for short-term parking shall comply with City Engineering Standard 7930 and the City's Community Design Guidelines which identify minimum clearances from other features. Short-term bicycle racks shall be placed in visible locations near public entries. Details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 15. The project shall comply with the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan calls for direct pedestrian access to be provided from the street to the main entrance. Additionally, the Specific Plan requires employers with 25 or more employees to develop trip reduction program. 16. The architectural site plan, civil plans, and landscape plans shall all agree with the building plan submittal. The plans shall be consistent with the conditions of approval, Airport Area Specific plan requirements, and City Standards. 17. The detached sidewalk showing an accessible pedestrian connection from Aerovista to the main entry as shown on the landscape plan shall be incorporated into all other plan sheets. 18. The final grading, drainage, and parking lot plans shall include provisions for pedestrian crossing of the vegetated swales located in the parking lot median without significantly disrupting the drainage design and LID benefits of the proposed drainage features. 19. The final drainage report shall show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual for pre vs. post runoff. The design and analysis shall clarify that the post development runoff will not exceed the pre -development for all storm events including the 100-year storm. 20. The building plan submittal shall include all details, signage, and striping for the parking lot improvements including directional pavement marking/signing and access controls at the one-way entrance. 21. The building permit plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements, dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and disabled access requirements of the CBC. Resolution No. ARC-4#44-13 892 Aerovista Place, ARC 142-12 Page 5 On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`" day of March, 2013, Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 4, 2013 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Greg Wynn and Chairperson Jim Duffy Absent: Commissioner Anthony Palazzo and Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of February 11, 2013 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: Rob Rossi, San Luis Obispo, commented on the tree planting along Broad Street in the downtown stating that the trees have started to encroach into the sewers. He pointed out that the root system should be monitored so they don't become invasive. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1330 Monterey Street. ARC 21-13; Review of a model and additions to a former auto dealership building including a request for a parking reduction for the use based on automotive trip -reduction features; C-R zone; IFixit/Kyle Wiens, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the adoption of the Draft Resolution which approves the project and parking exception, based on findings, and subject to conditions which she outlined. Commr. Curtis questioned if there was any proposed landscaping in the project. Ms. Ricci indicated that the existing landscaping along the street and in front of the building will be retained. Commr. Wynn questioned the viability of the large number of motorcycle spaces proposed. Ms. Ricci pointed out that the applicant would prefer to have a greater number of bicycle spaces for employees and that Condition 27 acknowledges this and Draft ARC Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 2 allows for some of the motorcycle paces shown to be converted to bicycle spaces and still qualify for a parking reduction. Commr. Curtis questioned if the parking exception will be specific to the applicant's use of the building or run with the land. Ms. Ricci responded that the Condition 28 explicitly states that the parking exception is for this particular tenant and use. Rob Rossi, San Luis Obispo, noted as the former owner of the building that he is supportive of the proposed business as a creative organization that fits the building. Kyle Wiens, applicant representative, presented a scope of their business and the ideas they have for expansion. He also stated that all employees are encouraged to use alternative modes of transportation. Thom Jess, applicant architect, presented an in depth review of plans and pictures of the proposed building.. He indicated that a landscape plan will be submitted that shows existing planters improved and augmented. He pointed out that the fixed windows will be replaced with operable windows and a new canopy will be created over the entry. He noted that the plan is to seek Gold LEED certification. Commr. Curtis asked about the condition and color of the corrugated roof material to be salvaged and reused for the front patio fence. Mr. Jess responded that the roofing is in good condition and fairly new. He added that the roofing has a natural patina and a matte finish. Commr. Ehdaie stated that the front patio fence seems uninviting and was concerned that it would not add value to downtown vitality. Commr. Wynn asked what the hours of operation would be and if there was any security considered. The applicant responded that employees are there from 6:00 a.m. until midnight and security will be considered. Commr. Wynn questioned how often deliveries were expected. The applicant answered four to five times a day and will be directed to the back of building. Chairperson Duffy asked about the storage of furniture and other items in the front patio and roof decks. Ms. Ricci stated that specific projects have had restrictions placed on them through conditions of approval and that a condition could be crafted for this project as well to limit the items that could be stored in the outdoor use areas. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ann Hodges, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the proposed business. She expressed specific concerns with the limited parking, the proposed patio fence, and the staircase to the rooftop patio. She also stated the delivery trucks will not have enough room for deliveries especially if trucks come at the same time. Draft ARC Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Curtis supported the overall aesthetic of the building, but was concerned that the design of the proposed front patio fence was not consistent with the building's Art Deco style. He noted that for the proposed parking to work that the applicant will need to provide oversight and the City will need to monitor the situation. Commr. Ehdaie noted that she did not support the proposed front patio fence. Commr. Hopkins supported the proposed building remodel and additions and the culture the business is creating; he felt that the project was refreshing and raises the bar for other developments. He agreed with the parking reduction with the applicant's trip reduction plan and proposed conditions. He found the proposed patio fence as an acceptable design solution. Commr. Wynn complimented the applicant and architect on the project design. He concluded that project conditions covered the concerns raised about parking, Chairperson Duffy agreed that the project was a positive addition to this corridor and that the City's monitoring would address parking concerns. He concurred with comments on an alternative design for patio fencing. He also supported an added condition to maintain outdoor use areas in an orderly manner. Commr. Wynn questioned whether a comprehensive sign program will come back to the Commission. Ms. Ricci pointed out that Condition No. 7 requires that the signs be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director, but that the Director could refer signs to the ARC if there were design issues. There was general agreement that the comprehensive sign program did not have to come back to the Commission. On motion by Commr. Hopkins, seconded by Commr. Wynn, to adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the project as recommended with the following change and addition to conditions: 1. Add second sentence to Condition No. 4 which reads: "The applicant shall revise the fence and gate design for the front patio area to be more in keeping with the building's Art Deco architectural st le utilizing a combination of opaque and transparent materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 2. Add new Condition No. 10 which reads: "The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. The front patio area and roof decks within the project shall not be utilized for general storage needs. However, outdoor patio furniture potted plants, and small barbecues may be placed in these areas." AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Hopkins, Wynn and Duffy NOES: Commr. Ehdaie Draft ARC Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 4 RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Palazzo and McCovey-Good The motion passed on a 4:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: a. Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. The Commission agreed to change the date for the second meeting in April from the 15th to the 22nd b. Review Standard Conditions of Approval for Architectural Review Projects — This item was continued to a later date. 3. Commission: Commr. Wynn noted that a fire riser was installed in the street yard at 1220 Osos Street that is very visible and not properly screened. Pam Ricci noted that a permit was issued for this installation without Planning staff's review of the plans. Chairperson Duffy mentioned that locating trash enclosures in street yards raises aesthetic concerns. He noted some recent installations in the Foothill area near Cal Poly. Commr. Wynn expressed concern that the Planning Commission with their review of the Monterey Place Project was looking at design elements that the ARC would typically take the lead with. Pam Ricci noted that the underlying zoning in this case specifically directed certain design features to be in the Planning Commission's purview. With the understanding of this unique situation. Commr. Wynn believed that the project should still return for ARC review if there were fundamental changes with the proportions, materials, and elements of the design. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Dawn Rudder Recording Secretary