Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2000 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners James Aiken, Lance Parker, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Jennifer Metz, Charles Stevenson and Jim Lopes Absent: Commissioners John Rawson and Lance Parker Staff: Peggy Mandeville PROJECTS: 1. 3290 Broad Street. ARC 164-99; Review of proposed 5,000 sq. ft. auto parts store in the “special considerations: overlay zone, C-S-S zone; Autozone, Inc., applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the project, subject to conditions and code requirements, which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Arthur Nave, applicant for Autozone, described the conditions he would like to see changed. He felt transom windows were of particular concern as well as a reduction in parking. Commr. Metz asked if a landscaping strip next to the building was possible. She would like to make grading more interesting by mounding. Nick Muick, Orcutt Road resident, questioned how one would enter the site. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes stated he had several concerns regarding this project. He indicated his preference for a separated sidewalk, service doors at the rear of the building near the creek, and reduced parking to 16 spaces. He felt the slope of the parking lot is too steep and the driveway needs to use more of the underlying easement. He felt there is an opportunity to remember the old narrow gauge railway line once going through the site using different paving materials. He agreed with staff’s recommendations regarding ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 2 the architecture and sign conditions and felt pole lights were more acceptable than wall lights. He also indicated that he would prefer the stucco not be so light in color. He referred to condition #46 and recommended that conditions be added regarding the design of street lights pursuant to the Scenic Roadways section of the General Plan. Commr. Howard stated that she is comfortable with staff’s recommendation, and was not concerned with parking. She felt that conditions #34 and #32 were important. Commr. Stevenson felt a good analysis of the project was presented. He indicated his hesitation at having staff resolve the final details. He also felt the site was over parked and thought the outer parking bay should be eliminated, or eliminate the bay in front of the building. He noted that the roll-up doors should not be visible from Orcutt Road, and that split face block base is acceptable. He also noted his concern with the project’s access. Commr. Metz indicated that more landscape and less parking was desirable, and felt that landscaping in front of building should be provided. She also stated that more landscaping should be provided on Orcutt Road frontage to screen the service area. She also encouraged more continuous landscaping around the building, and that some contrast in fencing from the building material was okay. She felt a more interesting treatment of trash enclosure should be provided. Commr. Aiken stated that he would like to see some degree of reduction in parking and landscaping near the building. He felt that buildings should be somewhat individual with compatible colors. He encouraged that roof-mounted equipment be screened from the line of site. He concurred with Commr. Metz’s comments on landscaping and would like to explore the possibility of relocating the service area. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to continue this item to a date uncertain, with direction to the applicant to revise the project design in accordance with the staff report recommendation with the following recommendations: 28. Add to condition: Cluster trees and shrubs strategically so as not to block views from Broad Street into the project and revise the grading design to provide a natural looking contour grading approach. 31. Replace “comply” with “be more compatible” and add: Explore the use of contrasting fencing materials that is different than the building wall and provide architectural embellishments to the right and left of the building entry and break up large blank walls with the use of small windows, tiles or other architectural embellishment. 32. Replace “comply” with “be more compatible” and replace “design” with “scheme”. 34. Add: Demonstrate how rooftop equipment will be screened from view from the public right of way. 37. Revise first sentence to read: Exterior lighting shall be directed downward within ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 3 soffits or poles rather than wall mounted and not spill onto adjoining properties. New Conditions  Add six-foot wide landscape strip in front of the building to reduce the amount of site paving and accentuate the building entry.  Consider realigning the building to be parallel to Orcutt Road with the loading doors at the rear of the building.  Consider reducing the amount of parking with a goal of 16 spaces to reduce the grade of the parking lot, the area of impervious surface and parking lot visibility.  Consider providing a detached sidewalk along the project frontage. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Stevenson, Aiken, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Parker The motion passed. 2. 3210 Broad Street. ARC 193-99; Review of commercial shell buildings in the “special considerations” overlay zone, and creek setback exception; C-S-S zone; Dan Lemburg, applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended that the Commission grant final approval to the project with a creek setback exception, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements which she outlined. The Public Hearing was opened. Warren Hamrick, applicant’s representative, discussed the conditions they would like changed which included conditions 1, 4, 12, 13, 14, and 16. He noted that the visibility of Lot 4 was important. There was no other public comment. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes stated that he does not want to be able to see the mechanical equipment or the back of the parapet. He felt a visual analysis would be helpful. He noted that the applicant has agreed to look into Pacific Coast railway right-of-way remembrance. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 4 Commr. Metz asked how landscape plan would be changed. Commr. Stevenson questioned why Building C was so close to Broad Street. He felt alternatives for the location of Building C need to be explored. Commr. Lopes liked individual window designs for each building, and also liked the idea of creating an identity for each building. Commr. Howard indicated that she feels comfortable with the applicant’s comments. Commr. Stevenson complimented the applicant on the design and noted tht this site is an important gateway to the city, and that landscaping on Broad Street will accentuate the project. He expressed concern with Building C. He also indicated his concern about reserving parking for specific tenants, and noted his concurrence with staff’s recommendation regarding not designating parking. Commr. Lopes stated that he would like to continue action on this item, with the direction on conditions 12, 13 and 15. He would like to add conditions that would revise the grading design to provide a natural looking contour grading approach, provide a 10- foot wid3 landscape strip on the Broad Street frontage, and show the revised layout around Building C. Commr. Metz noted concerns with the plant palette. She stated that she did not like Oak trees on Broad Street and felt that faster growing trees are needed. She would like to see significant landscaping on Broad Street including up-sized trees at the project entry. Overall, she would like larger (i.e. 24” box) trees planted on Broad Street and smaller trees (15-gallon) on the creek side, if it is acceptable with the Natural Resources Manager. Commr. Lopes stated that there is a 2 to 1 slope along Broad Street as shown on the project plans. He indicated the followings desires: a contour grading approach instead; a detailed plan of the concrete work in front of buildings; parking parallel to Building B, not skewed; more variety in materials for each unit; variety in height of base is preferred; and a variety in the cornices. He indicated he was opposed to wall mounted lights. He said he would like the colors a bit lighter in tone, and would like to look at an alternative color scheme. Commr. Stevenson indicated that the grading reflects 100-year flood requirements. Commr. Aiken stated that he had nothing to add. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the ARC continued the item to a date uncertain and directed the applicant to revise the project design in accordance with the staff report recommendation with the following revisions. 12. Add: Applicant shall consider a greater palette of trees larger in size at the project entries and downsized at the creek if acceptable to the Natural Resources ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 5 Manager. Provide landscape clusters rather than rows of plantings. 13. Delete: “reduce the amount of paving in front of Building A and B and replace with landscaping” and replace with “provide a detailed plan or area to show paving material, seating, etc. (a refinement of the layout) and investigate moving Building C to the edge of the easement. Provide the revised layout around Building C. 15. Revise condition as follows: The proposed architectural design shall be revised to provide a varied (up to 3 feet) architecturally designed concrete building base, … and add to the end of the condition: “with varied window widths and sizes between units (tenant spaces). Add Conditions a. Revise the grading design to provide a natural looking contour grading approach. b. Provide a 10-foot wide landscape strip on the Broad Street frontage. c. Show the revised layout around Building C. d. Look into a remembrance of the Pacific Coast Railway in the project design. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Howard and Stevenson NOES: Aiken and Metz ABSENT: Rawson and Parker The motion passed 3-2-2 vote. 3. 910 Aero Drive. ARC 215-99; Review of the second phase of an office/industrial development; C-S-S zone; Craig Cowan, applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner recommended that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain, without discussion. On motion by Commr. Metz, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC continued this item to a date uncertain, without discussion. AYES: Commrs. Parker, Stevenson, Aiken, Howard, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed on a 6-0 vote. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 6 4. 546 Bluerock Drive, ARC 15-00; Review of revised building plans and determination of consistency with the Stoneridge II Design Guidelines; R-1-PD zone; Robert Lamb, applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission approve the revised house design with conditions, based on the finding that the conditions will insure that the revised design will be consistent with the approved Stoneridge II Design Guidelines. The public hearing was opened. Robert Lamb, applicant and builder, described the project which he has purchased from John Kramer. He submitted a letter to the Commission. He noted that the building inspectors did not react to the changes when he was making them. He also stated that down spouts cause water problems. Commr. Lopes asked the applicant what architectural changes he was willing to make. Mr. Lamb responded that he would do whatever the Commission tells him to do. Commr. Stevenson stated that he wants to see the shutters, trellis, wrought iron and window back in the project. Doug Federman, 550 Bluerock, stated that Commr. Stevenson indicated this was the whole package and that all individual items make up the whole. He felt the approved design paid attention to detail, and he would like the applicant to finish this project as originally approved. He was concerned with the integrity of the cul de sac and felt that the architectural details are important. He also felt the color was okay and asked if external gutters will set a precedent. Rob Sudbury, 542 Bluerock (to the left of the project site) expressed agreement with Mr. Federman. He felt it was far more important that building details be at the front of the structure. He felt that external gutters look cheap, and appreciated the originally- approved design. He expressed his disappointment that the project was now a stripped down version of what was originally approved. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Stevenson felt much attention needs to be given to the front elevation and that drainage should run to the parapet at the back of the tower. He also felt the glass block should be removed. Commr. Parker indicated his preference to Alternative 2 of the staff report. He would like to see the project redesigned but said he would consider the recommended ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 7 changes. Commr. Howard expressed her concern that the Commission should ensure that the ARC Guidelines are being followed. She felt these types of situations should not occur, and supports modifications that don’t require rebuilding of the structure. Commr. Lopes noted that the house next door is also lacking details. He felt the house closely follows the guidelines, and that some changes could be made. He indicated that he could support staff’s recommendations, but could also approve the project as is. Commr. Aiken agreed with comments made by Jim Lopes. He noted that the gable at back of the house was the only difference. He had no problem with the gutters, and said he liked the trellis feature. He expressed support for minor alterations. On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC approved the revised house design, based on the following finding and subject to the following conditions: Finding 1. Conditions of approval will ensure that the revised design will be consistent with the approved Stoneridge II Design Guidelines. Conditions 1. Construct trellis over garage, per approved plans. 2. Install wrought iron or pre-cast concrete balustrade in the front elevation. 3. Replace glass block with approximate 3’ 0” x 4’ 0” window with shutters. 4. Install trellis above rear deck. 5. Explore redirecting front gutter to eliminate downspout or provide copper gutter and downspout. 6. Add accent tile or pre-cast concrete tile above entry arch. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Stevenson and Lopes NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Parker ABSENT: Commr. Rawson ABSTAIN: Commr. Metz The motion passed on a 3:2:1 vote. 5. 1015 Nipomo Street. ARC 62-98; Review of modification to windows and doors of approved mixed-use commercial building (Soda Water Works building); C-C-H-PD ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 8 zone; Mary Mitchell-Leitcher, applicant. _____________________________________________________________________ Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the aluminum windows with wood grids, based on the finding that the windows would maintain the quality of design and would be similar to the old Soda Water Works building. The public hearing was opened. Tim Woodle, applicant’s representative, explained the scheduling crisis that had existed. He noted that the aluminum windows are roughed in, and discussed the approved color board. He noted that colors that are on windows appear darker on the color board, and that the grids tend disappear when viewing from a distance. He also noted that the windows were not specifically called out on the ARC plans, and requested deferral of ARC action on the windows until the building is complete. Mary Mitchell Leitcher reviewed the history of the project and stated the City Council finally approved the project with certain items to return to the Architectural Review Commission. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes discussed painting the aluminum windows so that each building has different window color. He did not feel that the grids were important. Commr. Howard agreed with Jim Lopes on the painting, and supported the approved design with the grid. Commr. Parker felt the building should be constructed consistent with the approved building plans. Commr. Stevenson agreed with Lance Parker in that this is a historic building in a prominent site. He felt that windows are critical to the look of the building, and that painting is not a good solution and will be a maintenance problem. He felt a wide sash is important and a clad window was acceptable. Commr. Aiken said that he was sympathetic to owner contractor’s situation. In the interest of completing this project, he felt an exception may be justified. He noted his support for the grid look. Commr. Parker asked why aluminum windows were not used originally, and why the applicant feels they are good now. Commr. Stevenson asked about comments from the Cultural Heritage Committee, and the nature of their discussion relative to materials and design. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 9 Commr. Lopes asked if the windows could be painted. Commr. Aiken stated that it is difficult to ignore a financial dilemma. He felt a wider grid may be important. Commr. Lopes felt that non-grid windows may more closely resemble those that were in the original building. Commr. Stevenson felt that single lite windows in older style framing would be acceptable. He did not feel that wood was a critical material. However, he felt achieving the look, as approved, is key. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to deny the aluminum windows without grids and direct the applicant to install wood-appearing windows with grids that provide dimension and the appearance of wood windows although other cladding materials could be used, as shown on the approved ARC plans. AYES: Commrs. Stevenson and Lopes NOES: Commrs. Parker, Aiken, Howard, Metz ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion failed on a 2:4:1 vote. On motion by Zeljka Howard, seconded by Jim Aiken, to approve the windows with grids, as proposed by the applicant. AYES: Commrs. Parker, Aiken and Howard NOES: Commrs. Stevenson, Metz and Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion failed to pass on a 3:3 tie vote. On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC continued the item to February 22, 2000, to allow the applicant to return with an alternative proposal for retrofitting the windows to more closely match the window design as originally approved. An amendment was made to the motion to include the option to take out the aluminum windows. AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Howard, Metz and Lopes NOES: Commrs. Parker and Aiken ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed on a 4-2-1 vote. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 10 6. 3650 Sacramento Drive. ARC 199-99; Review of two proposed industrial buildings for a total of 63,870 square feet, to be constructed in two phases; M zone; Covey III, applicant. Whitney McIIlvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Steven Pults, project architect, described the design of the project. Nick Muick, 3731 Orcutt Road, spoke in support of the project and submitted a letter indicating his concerns regarding Prado Road. In response to a question from Commr. Lopes, Matt Quaglino, applicant, stated the Monterey Pines were vulnerable to pine pitch canker, which is why they are to be removed. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Parker inquired about the colors of the building. Commr. Lopes stated that the plans indicate that the pines in front could be retained if some minor changes were made. He asked if the pedestrian access could be relocated noting that access should be relocated toward the center of the front building. Commr. Aiken clarified that tree removal was not subject to further review by the Tree Committee. Commr. Parker indicated that a 9-foot parking space is acceptable and there is no need for it to be wider. He said he likes building style and color. Commr. Howard agreed with Commr. Parker. Commr. Metz felt that Podocarpus would be a maintenance problem if planted close to buildings. She suggested that Compact Myrtle might be a better choice. Commr. Stevenson stated that he liked the building design. On motion by Commr. Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Parker, the ARC granted final approval to the project with changes to condition 3 and 7 and the addition of condition 8, as follows: Findings ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 11 1. The project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Section 15322 (Infill Development). 2. As conditioned, the project’s design is appropriate for the Manufacturing zone and will be compatible with surrounding development. Conditions 1. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from Sacramento Drive and the proposed bikeway along the railroad tracks. Any back up generators installed on site shall have built in sound attenuation. 2. The development shall be designed so as not to increase flooding potential downstream. Detention facilities will be required. 3. Where cars overhang planters, the planters shall be a minimum of 6 feet wide. 4. The landscape area at the rear of the lot shall be enlarged to enable access for maintenance and to provide sufficient planter sizes for trees, consistent with the City Parking and Driveway standards, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded avigation easement to the Community Development Department. 6. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade approved as part of this permit. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. 7. Landscaping at the front of the site shall include berming and trees in this area shall be planted in a more random grove like pattern. The plant list shall be expanded to include some larger trees more in keeping with the scale of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Species recommended for consideration by the City Arborist include Redwoods (Aptos blue or Santa Cruz varieties), Italian stone pine (proven resistant to pitch pine canker), Evergreen elms, and Australian flame trees. To avoid future maintenance problems, do not use Podocarpus macrophyllus adjacent to buildings. Consider compact myrtle as an alternative. 8. Align the pedestrian walkway from the street toward the center of Building B. Code Requirements 1. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 12 2. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each parcel. 4. Building plans shall address the redirected water runoff from the property to the north as part of any retaining wall construction along the project’s northerly boundary. 5. An accessible path of travel must be provided between the public right-of-way and both buildings per UBC section 1114B.1.2. 6. Front entry walkways that have vehicle overhang shall be capable of providing a minimum of 4 feet clear width. 7. Parking lot design must be consistent with City Parking and Driveway standards. 8. The applicant must provide motorcycle parking and both short- and long-term bicycle parking consistent with the Zoning Regulations. The location of bicycle racks shall be consistent with criteria stipulated by the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993). 9. The project must comply with inclusionary housing requirements. The applicant has indicated he will be paying the in-lieu fee equal to 2% of building valuation as determined by the Chief Building Official prior to occupancy. 10. The project must comply with the California Fire Code, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Stevenson, Aiken, Parker, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote. 7. 860 Pacific Street. ARC 224-99; Review of a proposed public art mural for the Marsh Street Parking Garage expansion; O zone, City of San Luis Obispo, Parking Division, applicant. Keith Opalewski presented a report, and explained that the location on the building was established as the best location for public art. He stated that this project was ranked #1 by the art jury. He clarified the mountain view is from Foothill Boulevard, and then explained the selection process. He said the mural has a sculptural framing component ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 13 as well. The public hearing was opened. Steven Ploughman, local artist, explained that the metal should not stain the building because of the way it will be mounted. Commr. Aiken was concerned with the possibility of the sculpture staining the building and the roof below. Carol Polson indicated that the sculpture could be powder coated. Steven Ploughman stated that any runoff would be directed into the gutter system. Commr. Parker inquired as to how permanent the mural would be. Carol Polson responded about 25 years. Commr. Lopes asked about the content and subject of the mural. He stated that the vantage point could be from Osos and Pacific Streets pursuant to guideline #3. Bob Mourenza was concerned with the content. He felt it is dangerous to imitate what was there (view of mountain). Ann Rane, Arts Council, indicated not all public art is popular, but the process is democratic. She stated that the art piece was seriously scrutinized. The purpose of the work is not to replace the view of the mountain because it can’t be replaced; this is the artist’s vision. The public hearing was closed. Commr. Stevenson stated that this is a controversial project. He was concerned with the risk of insulting people who are sensitive regarding their loss of view. Commr. Parker likes the perspective but felt that any art in this location will be controversial, no matter what it is. He supported the project as proposed. Commr. Howard stated that she agrees with Lance Parker. She felt that content is better left to the experts. She supports the project. Commr. Lopes indicated that he does not think this is the best perspective for this mural. He would prefer a more accurate perspective of mountain as is seen now. He did not feel this project meets Guideline 3. Commr. Metz stated that she supports the project. Commr. Aiken felt the art piece meets the approved criteria. ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 14 On motion by Commr. Parker, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC approved the project, finding that the proposed mural meets the criteria for public art. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Aiken, Parker and Metz NOES: Commrs. Stevenson and Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed on a 4:2:1 vote. _____________________________________________________________________ 8. 860 Pacific Street. ARC 223-99; Review of a new sewer lift station with ancillary improvements and landscape screening; PF zone; City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, applicant. Whitney McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending final approval based on findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. Dave Hix, Utilities Department, introduced the project, explaining the reasons for the project at this location. On motion by Commr. Aiken, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on the following finding and subject to the following conditions: Finding 1. As conditioned, the design, location, and landscaping will ensure that the new lift station is compatible with existing site development and adequately screened from Highway 101. Conditions 1. Facility lighting shall be minimal and subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. 2. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Building height shall not exceed 16 feet from finish floor elevation including any roof mounted air conditioning unit, which shall be completely screened by the roof ARC Minutes February 7, 2000 Page 15 parapet. 4. The location of the new sewer lift station is within the “B” flood zone. Therefore, any new structure must have the finished floor elevation raised at least one foot above the highest grade adjacent to the building. This also applies to any facilities that could incur damage from floodwater (i.e.: electrical panels/outlets/meters, telemetry equipment, etc.). AYES: Commrs. Parker, Stevenson, Aiken, Howard, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed on a 6:1: vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission, scheduled for Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Mandeville and Whitney McIlvaine Recording Secretaries