Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1999 ARC Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION October 4, 1999 - 3:00 pm Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA PRESENT: Commissioners James Aiken, Lance Parker, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, and Charles Stevenson OTHERS Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner; Pam Ricci, Associate Planner; and PRESENT: John Shoals, Associate Planner MINUTES: Minutes of July 19, August 2, and August 16, 1999, were approved as written. PROJECTS: 1. ARC 102-96; 11855 Los Osos Valley Road: Review of architectural and site design for the DeVaul Ranch project, a proposed 269-unit residential planned development; DeVaul Ranch, LLC, applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project effective upon final Council approval of the project’s PD rezoning, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Charlie Eckberg, Investec, described the project and explained the modifications to the roof designs. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the applicant had considered relocating the garages to the back. The applicant answered that they have opted for a larger back yard and have dealt with the prominence of the garage door by providing architecturally detailed $3000 garages. Commissioner Stevenson also was concerned about the placement of the house and driveway as he felt it was necessary to maximize the prominence of the house and not the garage on the street. He suggested a shared driveway for the duplex units. He felt there was a concern regarding the easements and their maintenance and that people relate better to typical single-family residential developments. He suggested a range of 18”, 24”, and 26” roof overhangs. Commissioner Lopes questioned the massive appearance of the homes and the uniform 5-foot side yard setback. The applicant noted that every plan had one elevation with a hip roof offered. A study showed that the preferred home size was from 1,100 square feet to 2,800 square feet, and that people prefer having a home on a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Lopes mentioned that the side yard fencing blocked off the view of the park and that the homes were not facing the park. The applicant said that some of the fencing was solid and some was open. ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Stevenson said the garage proportion from the street seemed bigger than the home and that the living area should dominate the garage area as seen from the street. The applicant explained how all rear elevations were enhanced and described the windows having trim or molding. The applicant noted the private outdoor space and increased patio size for the apartments. They also revised some of the project entries. Commissioner Stevenson questioned the inclusion of a water feature. Commissioner Lopes felt the design of the entries was not very prominent and recommended a porch feature as well as a 30-foot building separation. Carol Florence discussed the streetscape and noted that 10-foot high palm trees were $2000 each and had an understory of flowering shrubs. She described the existing cypress trees and noted that the cypress planting would continue up to the ranch house. She said that they would maintain the wild plum hedge row on the other side of the berry bushes. She talked about the details of the tree removals. She explained the streetscape would include a 35-foot wide street, 6-inch curb, 6-foot planter, and 5-foot sidewalk. She also noted that the association would maintain the parkway. Commissioner Lopes asked if there was a wall or fence along the property line next to the apartments and Carol Florence answered that they didn’t want one. Commissioner Stevenson suggested using the same street trees on both sides of Tonini to provide more interface between the single-family and the multi-family development. Commissioner Lopes questioned the contiguous sidewalks next to the park and recommended more separation of walkways in the park. Brad Breckwald, John Wallace and Associates, answered that the sidewalks were integral next to the basin. Commissioner Lopes felt the trees should not block the view of the farmhouse up Madonna Road. He thought the bulb-outs had large radii and should be reduced to the Old Town/Downtown standards. Brad explained that the outside radius was 35 feet. Commissioner Parker suggested some bigger trees in the areas appropriate for specimen trees. Hamish Marshall stated that they agreed with all of the issues raised by the Commission except for item number 3. He said they didn’t want to be limited to 2 foot overhangs, they would prefer 18-inches minimum. He noted that they had enlarged the duplex ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 3 plan. He also said that they were confident that a 5-foot buffer of shrubs along the property line next to the apartments would be enough. Commissioner Lopes questioned the Quail Drive access. Commissioner Parker wanted to know what the 20-foot easement would look like. The Public Hearing was opened. Jean Webb, 1997 Partridge Drive, said that as part of a neighborhood she had circulated a petition and that the group has concerns regarding traffic, rainfall and density. Penny Sullivan, 1983 Partridge Drive, said that she was speaking for a lot of people who are concerned about the density. She wanted to know where they would be putting their trash and recyclables. She noted the this is the area the planes circle for landing. She projected 2,500 vehicles per day at the intersection, with even more for students. She was also concerned about crime with a higher density. Louis Verdugo, Cucaracha Court, felt that density, crime and traffic were concerns and he did not want the project approved without the concerns being resolved. Tim Plumb, Partridge Drive, didn’t want a higher density and preferred staying with the General Plan before it was changed. He did not want the Quail Drive access, or only 12-foot access if necessary. He was concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood. He was also concerned about an increase in runoff from the hillsides after a fire burns the vegetation. Charlie Eckberg stated that those issues had all been considered in depth. He noted that the park was meant to be a neighborhood park. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS The single family portion of the project was discussed first by the Commissioners. Commissioner Stevenson felt several items on the list were not addressed. He liked the higher density, neo-traditional design concept, yet believed this design was a typical subdivision design that is auto oriented. He thought the garages for the 32 patio homes should be in the rear and the 10-foot setback for the garage was too close. He did not feel any three-car garage should be facing the street. He said that he would prefer to see the cul-de-sacs connected but not required. He felt he could support the general PD layout. Commissioner Howard thought the applicant had made an incredible effort to respond to the Commission’s comments. She agreed that the layout wasn’t real conducive to the neighborhood. She felt the varying setbacks were good but was concerned about ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 4 the three-car garage. She suggested softening the courtyards. Commissioner Parker liked the site planning with the cul-de-sacs and felt it would be a good neighborhood. He thought the applicant had addressed everything except the Commission’s concerns about the house size and he wouldn’t deny the project due to house size. Commissioner Lopes recommended stemming the streets and felt the bulb-outs should be like downtown with a tight turn. He suggested a 15-foot setback and reducing the massing of the houses by bringing in the gable ends. Commissioner Aiken felt the location of the garages was okay. He questioned the zero lot line for the rear lot lines and thought shared driveways wouldn’t work well. He was ok with the proportion of the house and garage. He agreed with Commissioner Lopes’ approach to the bulb-outs. He was sympathetic to the neighborhood and access (emergency only). He had questions regarding the bottlenecking on Los Osos Valley Road. He liked the cul-de-sac designs. Commissioner Stevenson was concerned with the density and felt something special should be done with the increased density. He recommended recessing the garage. The following was discussed regarding the apartments. Commissioner Stevenson felt the applicant was very responsive to the comments by the Commission and suggested a roof element over the entry. Commissioner Howard suggested addressing the potential noise issue in the courtyard areas. Commissioner Parker felt the architecture was ok, suggested flipping the easterly building and addressing the courtyard noise issue. Commissioner Lopes recommended berming along LOVR to discourage people from jumping over the wall and questioned why the sidewalk was attached on Madonna Road. He suggested matching the street tree treatment. He asked why there were two sidewalks at the park and questioned the detached sidewalks on Street “A”. Commissioner Parker noted that he was not an advocate of the rear garages. Commissioner Stevenson moved to grant the project schematic approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Lopes seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, Lopes, Aiken, Howard, and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Metz ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rawson ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 5 The motion passed. 2. ARC 146-99; 1428 Nipomo Street: Review of additions to a historic house; R- 2-H zone; Gordon Oliver, applicant Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission continue the project with direction to make changes to plans to comply with the Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendations. Jeff Bague, project representative, explained that he believed that the previous owner had been through some type of discretionary review. He said that foundations and other work had been done in anticipation of making additions. He noted that the applicants were trying to make the house usable for their needs. He stated that the Cultural Heritage Committee had indicated that the house had more historical, rather than architectural significance. He felt the stairwell addition changes would be the most difficult to modify. The Public Hearing was opened. Gordon Oliver thought the stairwell was essential to the proposed floor plan, otherwise it would be dark and long. He indicated that he was very concerned about accurately recreating the period architectural details. Steve McMasters, Chairperson of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), felt the stairwell was of most concern with the architectural integrity of the house. He noted that the CHC was not evaluating whether or not the house would remain on the master list. He thought the historic importance might outweigh the architectural concerns. He stated that the roof lines and massing were concerns and the CHC suggested exploring the historic building code. Jeff Bague mentioned that the location of the entry changed with the deck addition. Commissioner Lopes asked about the primary focus of the Department of Interior Standards. Steve McMasters responded that the street elevation was the most important and character-defining part of the house. Commissioner Lopes asked if the mass of stairwell could be minimized more by bringing it more into the house’s main living area. Commissioner Rawson said the porch was more of a change to the street elevation than the stairwell. ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 6 Steve McMasters felt it appeared that the porch may have pre-existed. The CHC reviewed the changes before them, rather than earlier additions. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Howard felt that most of the historic integrity of the house had been lost. She said she would support the applicant’s efforts to preserve the house. Commissioner Parker had mixed feelings about the project, but felt the applicant’s viewpoint regarding remaining on the master list swayed him in supporting the project. Commissioner Lopes questioned whether the stairwell could be brought in closer to the main floor area by altering the design. He suggested adding another vertical window at the landing. Commissioner Rawson supported the project as submitted and felt that this type of addition and massing could have been done in the past. He recommended consistent window treatment. Commissioner Stevenson felt the window changes should be compatible with the existing windows. Commissioner Aiken agreed with the previous comments. Commissioner Rawson moved to grant final approval of the project based on the following findings and conditions: Finding 1. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on its compliance with the criteria contained in Section 15331, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation of the CEQA Guidelines. The rationale for finding the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties was that the stairwell addition is consistent with the architectural character of the house and representative of an authentic period addition. Conditions 1. New windows and trim shall match existing in design and materials 2. The chimney addition shall have brick veneer to integrate it with the architectural style of the historic house. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 7 AYES: Commissioners Rawson, Parker, Howard, and Aiken NOES: Commissioners Stevenson and Lopes ABSENT: Commissioner Metz The motion passed. 3. ARC 172-99; 321 Madonna Road: Review of a sign program, including signage exceptions, proposed for the SLO Promenade (Central Coast Mall Redevelopment); C-R-PD zone; MBK Southern California, LTD, applicant. This item was continued without discussion to a date certain, November 1, 1999. 4. ARC 28-99; 860 Pacific Street: Review of an addition to the Marsh Street Parking Structure; O zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project based on findings and subject to the conditions and code requirements outlined in the staff report. Fred Sweeney; Phillips, Metsch, Sweeney, & Moore Architects; introduced the project team, gave an overview of the project and responded to the Commission’s questions. Pierre Rademaker presented the project colors, signage, and explained the selection process. David Foote went over the changes to the landscape plans. There was no public comment. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Howard had questions about the pedestrian bridge and wanted to know if a study of the circulation (auto and pedestrian) had been done or if it was even necessary. She asked about the size of the new gazebo/stairway and impacts on the existing public areas at the Downtown Center. Commissioner Lopes asked for clarification on the new gazebo dimensions and elevator. He expressed concern with reducing the site of the existing planters. Commissioner Stevenson felt the pedestrian bridge was too rigid and suggested adding curves to soften the bridge’s appearance. Commissioner Parker asked about moving the existing marquis, and if they had future ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 8 plans to modify it. Commissioner Stevenson asked about the proposed signs and font. He suggested using the standard City font for consistency. Commissioner Lopes asked if they had considered other colors and supported the use of different materials at the base. Commissioner Rawson asked if the project applicant had concerns with the conditions in the staff report. He had a question on the Pacific Street elevation and recommended using a different material at the base of the building. He also wanted to know the location of the brick. Commissioner Lopes suggested reducing the circumference of the gazebo/stairway and retaining the capacity to handle pedestrian loads. He asked if the size of the planters could be increased and had they considered using the arch element on the pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Rawson liked the design but suggested using a different material at the base of the building. He asked about relocating the elevator shaft to maintain the location of the planter and statue. Fred Sweeney indicated that they will consider a possible modification to the gazebo design and a relocation of the elevator. Commissioner Stevenson recommended softening the hard lines of the pedestrian walkway by incorporating some arch. He wanted to have time to examine signage, especially if the City standards are being changed. Commissioner Howard liked the architecture and detailing in general, but had a problem with the pedestrian bridge. She felt it was visually intrusive, and had safety and liability problems. She liked everything except the pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Parker concurred with Commissioner Rawson’s comments. He thought the City should consider removing the crosswalk and direct pedestrian traffic to the corners. He inquired about the mural at the corner of Pacific and Morro Streets. Commissioner Aiken thought it was a wonderful project and supported the bridge as a good solution. He felt that there were other options for the existing statue at the Downtown Center. Commissioner Parker moved to grant final approval to the project based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 9 1. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan which show the site developed with a parking structure. 2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. Conditions 1. All City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Final project design and construction drawing shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 3. Project lighting shall be designed to comply with the ARC standards for height and illumination levels. The lighting system shall be designed to achieve a maximum illuminance of 10-foot candles at the property line. A photometric survey showing the lighting levels generated at the parking structure and at the property lines shall be prepared by an electrical engineer and submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. One additional street tree is required on Pacific Street unless waived by the City Arborist. 5. The transit stop located on Marsh Street, east of Chorro Street, shall be retained. (Currently, a turning lane is indicated adjacent to the curb from Chorro to the entrance to the parking structure entrance.) Transit vehicles will occupy this turn lane when transit stops are being made. 6. The bicycle lane striping adjoining the proposed turn lane into the parking structure shall be retained as a solid striped line. 7. Remove eight (8) existing on-street parking spaces on Pacific Street at its intersection with Morro Street to improve stopping sight distance and accommodate bulb-outs. The spaces shall be removed as follows: a) All spaces on the northerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the existing parking garage exit. b) All spaces on the southerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the new parking garage exit. c) One space on Pacific at the northeast corner of Morro. d) Two spaces on Pacific at the southeast corner of Morro. ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 10 e) All spaces on the easterly side of Morro, from Marsh to the Post Office truck entrance. 8. Soften the appearance of the pedestrian bridge by incorporating arches and architectural detailing. 9. Reduce the size of the gazebo/elevator tower and relocate landscaping to maintain adequate access via the existing ramp between the planter and stairs (down to the cinemas). 10. Use a different material (ceramic tile or brick) for the exterior walls of the elevator motor room. Code Requirements 1. Based upon a total parking space count of 341, 8 accessible parking spaces are required. At least 1 space shall be a van accessible space with an 8 foot unloading zone. A minimum clearance of 8’-2” shall be provided along the vehicle access path to and from the accessible parking spaces. 2. Curb ramps affording wheel chair access shall be provided on the ground floor level along pedestrian paths of travel into and within the structure. 3. Where the office spaces are sharing a common toilet room, either provide an additional exit to the outside from the common access area or provide individual toilet rooms to each office space. 4. Based on the property line location shown, the openings in the north wall of the structure (opposite the Post Office building) are NOT permitted. As shown, the wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction (less than 10 feet from the property line).All driveway ramps must be ADA compliant. Driveway ramps shown on the plans do not reflect the current City Standard Nos. 2110 (Marsh) & 2111 (Morro & Pacific). 5. A water allocation may be required, due to the addition of restroom and office facilities. However, appropriate credit would be given for the old Recreation Department building which has been removed. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City’s Water Conservation Division will determine any needed allocation and any necessary retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees may be required at the time a building permit is issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of any new water meters that are installed with the project, with appropriate credit being given for the meter that served the old Recreation building. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. Commissioner Rawson seconded the motion. ARC Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 11 AYES: Commissioners Parker, Rawson, Aiken, and Lopes NOES: Commissioner Howard ABSENT: Commissioners Stevenson and Metz The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for Monday, October 18, 1999 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Peggy Mandeville, Pam Ricci and John Shoals Recording Secretary