Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-2000 ARC Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION July 3, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA PRESENT: Commissioners Zeljka Howard, Mark Rawson, Mark Chandler, Rob Schultz, Jennifer Metz, and Jim Lopes ABSENT: Chairperson Charles Stevenson STAFF: Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Planning Technician Michael Codron PROJECTS: 1. 505 Higuera Street. MOD 90-99; Review of proposed tower feature with required horizontal banding for the approved New Times building; C-R zone; Steven Moss, applicant. Pam Ricci Commr. Rawson noted that he would refrain from participation in the discussion of this item because he owned property in the near vicinity of this site. Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending the Commission require that the proposed elevator tower be modified as outlined in Condition No. 3 of the ARC’s original approval of the project. The public hearing was opened. Steve Puglisi, project architect, indicated that it was his understanding that it was suggested, but not mandated, that he change the design of the elevator tower. He pointed out that a vertical recess had been added to the tower, similar to other windows on the same north elevation. He also asked to eliminate the bottom muntin strip, added to the windows of storefronts. Ron Whisenand explained his understanding of the discussion by the ARC regarding the elevator design. The public hearing was closed. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Schultz said that there was no doubt that the original intent of Condition No. 3 was that some changes had to be made to the design of the tower. However, he indicated that he did not object to the proposed vertical element as a solution to the concerns with further articulating the tower. He said that he felt that the muntins should be retained. Commr. Metz noted that her recollection regarding the tower design was that something needed to happen with the Higuera Street elevation rather than the north elevation, since it was the more prominent. Commr. Chandler said that he liked the proposed vertical element on the tower and would make no changes to the building. Commr. Howard noted that the simple tower adds elegance and she liked the design. Commr. Lopes said that he agreed that the condition provided latitude in terms of articulating the tower. He questioned whether the proposed vertical band was providing the intended relief consistent with the original condition. On motion by Commr. Chandler and seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC moved to approve proposed modifications to original conditions as follows: 2. The ground floor windows of the building are approved as originally submitted without a requirement for either:  a 1’-2’ high bulkhead below windows; or  an additional horizontal muntin strip at a height of about 2’ from the base of windows. 3. The proposed elevator tower near Higuera Street shall be modified to include a vertical recess as articulation on the north side facing the parking lot as shown in the posted working drawing at the 7-3-00 ARC meeting. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Schultz and Howard NOES: Commrs. Metz and Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson ABSTAINED: Commr. Rawson The motion passed. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 3 2. 601 Sweeney. ARC 78-00; Demolition of an existing house and construction of two 1-bedroom dwellings, with site development exceptions; R-2-S zone; Alex DeLeon, applicant. Michael Codron Michael Codron, Planning Technician, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. The Public Hearing was opened. Alex DeLeon, the applicant, said that there are many obstacles to this project. He said that the City is requiring an additional 10 feet for street widening, and he is requesting a 5-foot fence to provide privacy for tenants. He said there are 15 feet between edge of the fence and the driveway for site distance. The covered porch exception serves two functions – it provides a covered entry and place for patio furniture. He said that he would like to remove the third palm tree and would be happy to comply with other requirements, such as street trees and no rocks in the creek bed, but would like to remove the palm. He said that the other conditions are fine. Art Murphy described the neighborhood and said that he was very happy with the project, which improves blight in the neighborhood. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Metz asked for clarification on the City’s street tree requirement of 1 tree every 35 feet. Commr. Schultz asked where the front doors are located. Commr. Lopes said that there are problems with setbacks and asked whether the applicant had examined different sized yards. Commr. Metz asked about the third parking space, and if the space should be available to any particular units. Commr. Lopes asked questions about fence height and site distance for vehicles in the driveway. Commr. Shultz commented that he liked the looks of the project, but was concerned about the use of a bonus room and storage area. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 4 Commr. Metz would support removal of the third palm tree and said that she did not think the applicant should change plans for the palm. She said variance and fence height exception are supportable. Commr. Lopes said that he was concerned about setbacks and saw no compelling reason for reduced setbacks. He remarked that the neighbors need to see more yard area before the fence and suggested consideration of a 6-foot setback on Rockview. He said that he supports removing the large palm. Commr. Chandler said that he was struggling with the garage setback and thought that 15 feet would be a good compromise. Commr. Howard emphasized the importance of Condition #2 and agreed with removal of the palm tree. She also agreed about the importance of landscaping, but felt that the yard is more important. She said that it would be better to have the garage setback more than 10 feet. Commr. Rawson said that he was not sure additional setback for the garage would be worthwhile. He said that the fence corner should be cut off. He supported the project. Commr. Chandler asked Art Murphy about setbacks. On motion by Commr. Chandler and seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions, as noted in the follow-up letter to the applicant. Findings: 1. The general health, safety and welfare of people living and working at the site or in the vicinity will not be harmed by the setback exception for the patio because site distance at the corner will not be impacted by the structure and the exception does not involve interior living space. 2. The proposed residential development is architecturally compatible with the site and with existing development in the neighborhood. 3. Strict compliance with the City’s fence height standards would serve no public purpose since the fences will be set back approximately seven feet from the edge of the sidewalk and they are intended to allow for a certain amount of privacy in the proposed yard areas. 4. The proposed setback exceptions are not a grant of special privilege, but are necessary for the applicant’s reasonable use of the site considering that the lot is only 40 feet wide. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 5 5. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, New Construction of Small Structures, Section 15303.b.). Conditions: 1. The patio cover design for the rear unit shall be modified to comply with the Creek Setback Ordinance subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. The applicant shall submit a “Conditions of Use Agreement”, suitable for recording and binding on future property owners, that acknowledges the limits of the bonus room on the second floor and the hobby shop on the ground floor, in that they may not be used as bedrooms and together shall not be considered as a separate unit. 3. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the City Arborist prior to any trees being removed from the site. 4. The landscape plan shall be modified to show only native, riparian vegetation in the area adjacent to the creek. 5. No modification to the creek channel is approved as part of this project. Any modifications proposed in the future, including placing river rock within the creek banks, shall be subject to review by the Natural Resources Manager and all necessary permits for the work shall be obtained prior to beginning the work. 6. All site drainage shall be collected and directed to the drainage channel (creek) along the East side of the property. Existing contours slope to the Southeast. A drainage interceptor along the Southerly property line may be required to achieve redirection to the drainage channel. 7. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, as required by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 8. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 6 9. The fence corner at the Rockview/Sweeney intersection shall have a corner cut- off for increased visibility at the intersection and to allow for additional landscaping on the street side of the fence. Code Requirements: 1. City standard frontage improvements, including curb, gutter and sidewalk (1.2 m (4 ft.) along Rockview and 1.8 m (6 ft.) along Sweeney) and street paving shall be installed along both frontages, including a curb ramp at the corner of Rockview and Sweeney, in accordance with City plans. Dedication of 3 meter (10 ft.) of right of way, plus necessary area (property line return), as needed to accommodate the sidewalk at the back of a standard curb ramp, shall be dedicated to the City, as noted on the plan. 2. A civil engineer shall evaluate the existing drainage channel to determine if it has adequate capacity for a 10-year storm; if not, then the channel shall be modified to meet the requirement, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Division. Determination of 100-yr. storm flooding limits shall also be determined and shown on plans. Any proposed improvements (hot tub, landscaping, fencing, etc.) that create an obstruction to drainage flows shall be relocated and/or modified, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Division. 3. City standard street trees, at the rate of 1 per 10.7 m (35 ft.) of street frontage, shall be installed per the City’s master street tree list, unless otherwise approved by the City arborist. King Palms, Queen Palms and Cajeput are not on the approved list. 4. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City’s water supplies. 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. 5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued, with credit for existing services, paid under the Yoakum Assessment District. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a “per unit” basis. 6. The property is tributary to the Rockview Lift Station. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Lift Station Impact Fee as a condition of development, with credit for payment under the Yoakum Assessment District. ARC Minutes July 3, 2000 Page 7 7. The existing sanitary sewer mains and services shall be located and shown on the plans. The plans shall include a note requiring that the existing sewer lateral be properly abandoned at the main in accordance with City standards, unless it is determined to be acceptable upon testing to City standards. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Rawson, Chandler, Schultz and Metz NOES: Commr. Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission, scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretaries