Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2000 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners, Zeljka Howard, Charles Stevenson, Jim Lopes, Mark Chandler and Rob Schultz Absent: Commrs. Rawson and Metz Staff: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner and Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PROJECTS: 1. 499 Spanish Oaks Drive. ARC 26-00; Review of home designs and site development constraints on 53 single-family lots in Tract 1750 (phase 6); R-1 SP zone; R.W. Hertel, applicant. John Shoals (30 minutes). Whitney McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project as amended, with building height and street yard exceptions for certain lots based on findings, and subject to conditions, which she outlined. The staff also requested that the Commissioners provide direction on fencing and landscaping at the double frontage lots on Spanish Oaks Drive. Commr. Schultz refrained from participating due to potential conflict of interest. Lauren Luker, APS Architects, reviewed recommended conditions and answered questions regarding front yard setbacks. Jerry Michael, RRM Design Group, answered questions regarding the siting of building plans on approved grading plans. He also responded to questions regarding hillside development standards. Randy Rea, APS Architects, answered questions concerning building elevations, specifically rear elevations that will be visible from Orcutt Road and the park. The Commissioners questioned why was there no landscaping plan and asked if the noise wall would be at street level or above street level in relation to the houses. The public hearing was opened. Steve Delmartini commented on setbacks, changing house plans and noted there would be no deviation from Phase 5. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 2 The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes stated that this subdivision is in a highly visible location deserving more attention to massing and scale of buildings as they are seen from the street. He did not feel Condition 5 would serve its purpose. He questioned the lack of a landscaping plan, and asked if there would be oak trees. He expressed the need for landscape screening of the homes. He questioned the location of the noise wall, and expressed his desire to continue this item. Commr. Howard noted that the plans do not necessarily relate to the sites. She was concerned with the visibility of certain elevations and agreed with the comments made by Commr. Lopes. Commr. Chandler expressed concern with setbacks. He felt the project’s location is prominent and setbacks help to achieve aesthetic goals. He was not interested in reducing the setbacks. He felt that building development is too dense, and that a landscape plan is necessary. Commr. Stevenson stated the special character of this site is different than the existing development. He did not support requested height or yard setback exceptions and noted that he has received many telephone calls from citizens objecting to the overall height, size and density of the home design. He felt that the rear elevations facing Orcutt and Tank Farm need attention. He also felt that landscaping should continue the riparian look near the creek. He stated that the project borders a gateway into San Luis Obispo and the project presents a harsh urban edge. He felt the project needs internal landscaping to soften the development. He noted concerns with drainage and the project impacts on the habitat of the creek, indicating that some filtering of storm water runoff is needed. Commr. Lopes stated that the porch elements in the 504 Plan are too massive. He felt the white window choice does not relate to the Arts and Crafts style, and that the color palette is still too light (#2, 3, 7 and 8). He felt the entry porch details need to be modified to be more in scale with the facade on 504; the palette needs darker hues in the color range; and no height exceptions should be allowed. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC continued consideration of the project to a date uncertain, with the following direction: 1. Modify building sizes to be more compatible with lot size and slopes and to avoid setback and height exceptions. A minimum street yard of 15 feet may be acceptable in a few instances for hillside lots. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 3 2. Further articulate the rear and sides of all residences. Provide additional setbacks to upper stories for rear and side elevations, which will be visible from Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road. 3. Submit a preliminary landscape plan with three palettes – one compatible with the riparian area along the creek; one providing a natural transition between the subdivision and the open space area on Islay Hill; and an interior landscaping plan for each lot which will provide screening of approximately 50% of the developed area from views as seen from outside the subdivision. 4. Clarify how drainage will be conveyed and provide some filtration before dumping street and driveway storm water into the creek. 5. Show the location, design and landscape screening of the proposed noise wall. 6. Modify the front elevation of plan 505 to be more consistent with hillside development policies, including setting back the main and upper levels, reducing the size of the front master bedroom window, and continuing the tile roof over the garage to provide visual relief. 7. Modify the entry porch on plan 504 to be less massive and more in scale with the front façade. 8. Modify the color palette for the new homes to be darker in hue for the color range. 9. Modify plans to show use an alternative pervious paving material on the driveways that are wider than 26 feet. 10. Submit a plan showing fencing and landscaping to be installed at the rear of the double frontage lots on Spanish Oaks Drive. 11. Revise turtle barrier design to comply with the design described in the turtle study. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Howard and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz REFRAINED: Commr. Schultz The Motion passed on a 4:0:1 vote. 2. 2034 Santa Barbara Street. ARC182-00 Architectural review of a remodel of an existing home improvement store which includes construction of building additions, a new lumber storage building and yard office; site improvements; signage and ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 4 fence height exception at the southeast corner of Santa Barbara and High Streets. Peggy Mandeville (45 minutes) Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval of Phase 1 improvements to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, which she outlined. She also provided the applicant and staff with comments and direction regarding plans for Phase II. The Public Hearing was opened. Rod Levine, project architect, submitted a letter in response to the staff report explaining Phase 1 and giving a quick overview of Phase II, including a revised parking area layout and proposed train display. He explained the extent of an 8-foot high fence and answered questions regarding access to parking which will replace the powder storage building. Mr. Levine stated that, with regard to the building design, there are problems with the request for a wooden platform. He noted he would rather provide a concrete finish that mimics boards, and that landscaping could include a 5-foot strip in front of the parking area. He also explained that corporate headquarters dictates signage and the need to compete with signage of big box stores. Rob Strong, applicant’s representative, said he wants to defer all Emily Street improvements until Phase II and would like to install fencing instead. Mr. Wallis stated that parking at the rear will be for customers only, and employee parking will be off-site. He indicated his desire for banner signage on the light pole, 3 to 4 times per year for 2 to 3 weeks at a time, announcing specials. He said he would like sign colors as proposed. He noted that a loudspeaker paging system is still needed with Phase 1, but will not be required for Phase II. He indicated their intent to go to a wireless system at that time. Mr. Wallace addressed the neighbors’ concerns regarding drainage and said they could put in a solid wood fence near the rental center. Rob Strong discussed Santa Barbara Street. It was asked if the wooden doors recommended for the lumber storage building would be stained wood siding. Anthony responded that they may just want an opening and no doors and would rather paint the building the same as the rental center. He did not feel the siding would be stainable. It was asked if galvanized roofing would be less reflective. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Howard stated that she did not want a wooden platform and was satisfied with ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 5 the fence height. Commr. Chandler said he would like to see the fence height shown on the site plan and would like samples of specific siding and roofing materials. Commr. Schultz agreed with the alternative to a wooden platform and was concerned with a substitute for permanent landscaping. He expressed his desire to retain condition 13 regarding noise and loud speakers. Commr. Lopes agreed with staff’s recommendations. Commr. Stevenson had no more to add other than changing the condition regarding the wood platform. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions, as modified: Findings 1. The project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Section 15332 (Infill Development). 2. As conditioned, the project’s design is appropriate for the Service Commercial zone, will be compatible with surrounding development and will contribute to the quality of life in San Luis Obispo consistent with goals contained in the City’s Architectural Review Guidelines. 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Railroad District Plan because it contains elements that reflect the unique character of the Railroad District including architectural design, lighting and signage. 4. A fence height exception along the Emily Street property line is warranted given potential security issues in this area near the railroad tracks that does not get much vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 5. Given the size of the site and the variety of merchandise (hardware, garden, equipment rental, lumber etc.) associated with the home improvement business, the Architectural Review Commission finds it appropriate to allow 4 signs where 2 are normally allowed. Conditions 1. Final grading/retaining wall design shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. Building design shall be modified as follows: ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 6 a) Increase the size (height and width) of the monitor roof feature to bring it into scale with the proposed building. b) Provide wood sided horizontal sliding garage doors in lieu of the roll-up doors. c) Provide a finish to the concrete area surrounding the new building that simulates wooden platform that was on the old storage barn. d) Provide min. 2-foot wide horizontal wood siding wainscot around entire building. e) Eliminate monitor roof feature on 80 s.f. yard office due to its small size. f) Revise yard office windows and door to comply with the district plan guidelines (attached) 3. The use of red and off-white shall be minimized to comply with the District design guidelines. Additionally, staff shall review and approve samples of the applicant’s final roofing, fencing, and siding materials to ensure compliance with the Railroad District Plan. 4. A minimum 5 foot wide area shall be provided along the Emily Street frontage for the purposes of landscaping. To provide a pervious surface in this area and allow for an easy transition to permanent landscaping should the use change, this area shall be covered in interlocking pavers rather than asphalt. Additionally, sufficient plantings shall be located along this frontage to provide adequate screening. Finally, landscaping shall be provided within the new parking area to provide screening. 5. 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. Lighting shall also comply with the Railroad District design guidelines. 6. A maximum 8 foot high fence (including any retaining walls and bases) along the Emily Street frontage shall be approved. In the areas where a retaining wall is proposed and an 8-foot high fence is desired, the applicant may want to consider moving the retaining wall in from the property line five feet to break up the retaining wall/fence combination and accommodate the boxed tree display. 7. No additional signage shall be added as part of Phase I. 8. The trash enclosure shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the Emily Street property line with gates opening to the west. Dense landscaping shall be located within the setback to provide adequate screening of the enclosure. 9. The use of tent structures for purposes other than City approved temporary outdoor sales shall be prohibited. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 7 10. The applicant shall submit documentation to the Chief Building Official verifying that all underlying property lines have been eliminated. The site recently consisted of many small parcels. Buildings cannot be constructed across property lines. 11. Building plans shall note a requirement for archaeological monitoring during grading of the parking area and excavation for building foundations and retaining wall footings. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee. 12. Boardwalk style sidewalks shall be provided for any new or replaced sidewalks. 13. To avoid noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, no exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, or similar devises are allowed. 14. The right-of-way line (property line) along Santa Barbara is not shown correctly. A portion of Haskins Ave. was not abandoned in 1990 in anticipation of future widening. The strip of land is 10 feet wide and 50 feet long; modify plan accordingly. 15. In accordance with M.C. Chapter 12.16, complete frontage improvements are required across the entire frontage of the property along Emily Street. However, the developer shall construct, at this time, only those frontage improvements between the southerly property line and the northerly side of the proposed driveway entrance. Said improvements shall consist of a driveway ramp, boardwalk sidewalk, curb & gutter, the westerly one-half of the street pavement plus a 12’ travel lane (including base) easterly of the centerline. A Public Improvement Plan shall be designed by the developer’s engineer, coordinated with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum’s plans to locate track in the area and submitted to the City for review and approval. Said plan shall specify grades and alignment of improvements of all of Emily Street, northerly of the intersection of Roundhouse Ave. These improvements may be deferred until Phase II to the approval of the Public Works Director only if no access is proposed from Emily Street and the existing gate is replaced with fencing. 16. There is an old railroad spur running down Emily Street. The applicant shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum regarding the removal/relocation of the tracks. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 8 17. That portion of Emily Street between Roundhouse Ave. and the subject property is not improved with structural asphalt. With the improvements proposed by the developer, the developer shall improve said section of roadway between the subject property and Roundhouse Ave. with a 24’ wide structural pavement section, centered on the centerline of the right-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. These improvements may be deferred until Phase II to the approval of the Public Works Director only if no access is proposed from Emily Street and the existing gate is replaced with fencing. 18. Street trees as applicable for Phase I shall be planted in accordance with City standards and policies. A revised landscape plan shall be developed for High Street that shows street trees planted behind the High St. sidewalk in the planting area near Santa Barbara (not in the High St. sidewalk), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 19. Trees and large deep rooting shrubs shall not be planted within 10 feet of the existing sewer main, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Building structures shall not be constructed within the City’s sewer easement. The sewer easement shall be shown on plans. 20. All fencing and gates, crossing the public sewer easement shall be constructed with posts outside of said easement. 21. All existing trees are to remain, unless specifically approved by the City Arborist. 22. The redevelopment of this site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to any demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS video tape documenting the internal condition of the pipe. 23. Demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majority of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. 24. The drainage channel along the southerly property line has been inadequate for some time. High runoff flows have flooded the down slope building over the years. A hydraulic analysis will be required to determine the adequacy of the proposed drainage design. 25. An accessible path of travel shall be provided between the buildings. 26. The developer shall construct a six foot wall or solid fence along the southern property line to address the concerns regarding over spray onto the adjacent property while washing rental equipment. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 9 Code Requirements 1. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 2. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using Appendix III- A of the CFC. 3. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the CFC. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City System shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the CFC and the approved City Engineering Standards. 4. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire-protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and California Building Code. 5. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the CFC. 6. 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. 7. A water allocation is required, due to the building additions and intensification of use. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City’s Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project’s Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per bathroom retrofitted. 8. If a larger water meter is required, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged, based on the increase in size. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 9. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 10 The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Comments Regarding Phase II: Commr. Lopes stated that the parking and circulation layout is good. The entry needs attention and the colors should be consistent with the railroad plan. The project needs a canopy that isn’t so boxy and the entry windows and private public art in the patio area should not appear as an isolated exhibit. The Santa Barbara Avenue building frontage needs more attention and perhaps windows. Commr. Howard had nothing to add. Commr. Chandler had questions about Santa Barbara Avenue. Commr. Schultz stated that the covered patio was out of proportion and was concerned with the amount of signage proposed. Commr. Stevenson commented that the Santa Barbara frontage (west elevation) needs some detailing such as lighting, rafter tails and windows. 3. 1998 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARC21-00; Review of a proposed 2-story commercial building of approximately 14,500 square, site improvements; and reduced side yards from 15 to 10; C-S-H zone; Steve Rarig, applicant. Whitney McIlvaine (45 minutes) Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission grant final approval, based on findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Val Milosevic, project architect, supported staff’s recommendations, but said he would prefer not to add an entrance from Santa Barbara Avenue since the project already has three entries. The applicant proposes to use the same light fixtures as in the transit center and plans to defer a sign application. Mr. Milosevic answered questions ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 11 regarding roof material and siding finish, noting that the green windows would match the Railroad Square windows. Commr. Chandler asked if there were other alternatives to the split face wainscoting. Commr. Stevenson asked about the site cross-section grade change. Mr. Milosevic responded it would be 9 feet at High Street and Santa Barbara Avenue, and the finish floor elevation would be 234 feet. A question was asked regarding access to parking in the rear. Commr. Lopes stated that the building materials do not reflect the Railroad Design Guidelines, and questioned why the Cultural Heritage Commission did not review this request. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Schultz expressed his concern that there was no CHC review. He felt the clock and wainscoting do not fit with the railroad theme and the project needs an entrance or some feature on the Santa Barbara elevation. He also felt that landscaping in the parking lot is sparse and that a planter should be added in the foyer at rear of building. He indicated he would like to see a wooden walkway into the building and felt that access to the rear parking lot is also necessary. Commr. Chandler agreed with Commr. Schultz and would like to see a substantial amount of landscaping at the base of the building. He was concerned with the split face block color. The landscaping plan shows agapanthus, which he felt is not good enough for screening. Commr. Howard agreed with Commr. Chandler and felt that the project needs more landscaping in the parking area, as well as access to rear parking. The Santa Barbara elevation needs some further articulation, ideally an entrance. Commr. Howard said she likes the design, but felt it needs a darker base color and the clock to needs a more historic character. Commr. Lopes stated that the building material should reflect tone of use. He opposed rust colored metal siding, and the modern entry which he felt are not consistent with the Railroad Plan. Commr. Stevenson said that he wants CHC comments and would like a more historic look to the project. It was recommended that the project be referred to the CHC for further evaluation of its consistency with the Raolroad Plan; that there be additional landscaping in the parking ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 12 lot at the building perimeter and adjacent to the building; and that access steps to the furthest parking area be included. Commr. Stevenson recommended the exploration of building materials with a darker base and suggested that the ARC revisit finish floor elevation. On motion by Commr. Chandler, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC continued consideration of the project, with the following direction: 1. Send the project to the Cultural Heritage Committee for further evaluation of the project’s consistency with the Railroad District Plan. 2. Provide additional landscaping in the parking lot, including provision of landscape planters after every six parking spaces. 3. Provides additional and more substantial landscaping in planter areas surrounding the building, including some landscaping at the rear of the building. 4. Further articulate the Santa Barbara Street frontage by including an entrance on this side or a similar feature. 5. Provide steps to and from the furthest parking area at the rear of the site. 6. Consider alternative building materials and a darker color for the base of the building. Commissioners emphasized that the building siding, entry canopy and the clock design should be consistent with the Railroad District Plan, and did not appear to be as proposed. 7. Analyze lowering the finish floor elevation so the building will not be so high above the sidewalk at the corner of Santa Barbara and High Streets. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 4. 755 Santa Rosa Street. ARC 97-00; Review of proposed changes to a new 20,000 office building; O zone; Jim and Bev Smith, applicants. Pam Ricci (45 minutes) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the ARC ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 13 continue consideration of this item to a date uncertain with direction. She explained proposed design changes and noted that the applicant’s representative was looking for direction rather than final approval at this meeting. The public hearing was opened. Steve Puglisi, applicant’s representative, noted that he is not seeking final approval and reviewed the proposed revisions per a submitted memo. He explained that moving the balconies out toward Santa Rosa Street will add depth to the front elevation, and felt that the oval light shafts were preferred. He added that the fascia detail change makes the main vertical elements more prominent. He felt that the window change emphasizes vertical elements and makes a bolder statement. He thought that the rear changes give the building a much stronger base, more like the front. Robert Cheung, 764 Santa Rosa, stated that the building looks very nice, but is not compatible with the neighborhood. He is concerned with the 35 foot building height and how the project could change the character of the area. He noted that he did not like the proposed Art Deco architectural style of the building. Commr. Lopes asked about adding more metal grillwork to windows to recall other building elements. He felt that the towers and windows give the building a more “federal” appearance. He indicated his preference for the new fascia detail. Commr. Howard asked how deep the balconies will be. Mr. Puglisi responded that a10-foot depth is proposed. He noted that staff recommended an 8 foot depth, which he felt was acceptable. Commr. Chandler asked Mr. Puglisi for clarification regarding circulation through the parking lot. Commr. Chandler commented that he would like further information on the retention of street trees. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Chandler stated that the building is too imposing and tall, and not in character with the area as a gateway to the city. Commr. Howard stated that she likes the building and its scale, and felt the architectural style is very graceful and consistent with other downtown buildings. Commr. Lopes discussed previous recommendations for bringing the building scale down. He liked the proposed revisions in terms of architectural details over the original ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 14 plans. He also liked the circular light shafts and new fascia details, but said he preferred the original window design. Commr. Schultz agreed with the staff’s concerns. He felt the applicant should explore lowering the building and providing grading information to show why the building cannot be lowered. Commr. Stevenson summarized the previous review of the project. He stated that he is concerned with the building advancing toward the street and the street trees being protected. He said he supports other changes and reiterated for the new commissioners that drainage is the main issue with further lowering the building. Commr. Lopes suggested that the streetscape elevation be submitted to better illustrate actual visual impact. Commr. Lopes asked Steve Puglisi about deletion of the roof on the rear tower. Mr. Puglisi described it as a “gratuitous” hat element that he felt was not necessary. Commr. Stevenson asked about emphasizing the base and concerns of staff of the building looking “bottom heavy.” Steve Puglisi indicated that he did not agree with that conclusion. Commr. Schultz stated that he felt the streetscape elevation and landscaping plan would help minimize scale. He commented that the building should de-emphasize the garage light shafts as much as possible. Commrs. Schultz and Chandler supported the stepped balcony idea. On motion by Commr. Howard, seconded by Commr. Lopes, to continue this item to a date uncertain, with the following direction: 1. Allow lower balconies, with variable setbacks, to encroach a maximum of 4’ into the street yard setback, stepping back from the center to the outside corners of the building. 2. Allow the oval-shaped light shafts on the front building elevation. 3. Soften the edge details of the floating balconies on the third level a shown on revised elevations. 4. Modify the fascia detail as shown on the modified elevations. 5. Move the projecting parts of the rear façade to the center with the balconies at the far ends. Lower the height of the central tower element, but keep it slightly higher ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 15 than the adjacent portions of the facade. Explore enhancing the brick base, but make it less bottom-heavy by considering fewer courses of bricks. 6. Explore adding grillwork to the modified window design. 7. Explore lowering the height of the inset areas above upper balconies on the front building elevation. 8. Soften the Mill Street corner of the project along Santa Rosa Street, similar to the Peach Street corner. 9. Provide a streetscape elevation of the project with submittal of plans for final approval. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 5. City-wide. ARC Guidelines. ARC 42-00; Review of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and Workscope for the update of the City’s Architectural Review Guidelines. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting that the Commission recommend approval of the RFP and workscope to the City Council, to enable staff to hire a consultant to prepare revised Architectural Review Guidelines, and select a Commission liaison to work with staff and the consultant and provide additional coordination with the ARC on the update. The public hearing was opened. There was no public comment, and the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS The Commission suggested to staff that language be added to the RFP regarding where and how someone could obtain copies of the working draft. Commr. Lopes stated that he would like to see guidelines adopted as standards. There was some discussion about the desirability of codifying guidelines and retaining flexibility. Commr. Stevenson stated that he would like to see the ability for revisions and additions to the guidelines. ARC Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 16 Commr. Howard stated that original graphics should be used when possible. It was suggested that interested consultants be given a copy of the Railroad District master Plan to review for ideas on formatting and presentation. Commr. Howard suggested looking at districts within the city to which certain standards would apply. Commr. Lopes stated that the general concepts should be reincorporated into the revised guidelines. On motion by Commr. Howard, seconded by Commr. Schultz, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the RFP and workscope to enable staff to hire a consultant to prepare revised Architectural Review Guidelines, and that Commr. Stevenson be selected as the Commission liason. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission, scheduled for Monday, May 1, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully Submitted, Whitney McIlvaine and Pam Ricci Recording Secretaries