Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2000 ARC Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION August 21, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA PRESENT: Commissioners Zeljka Howard, Mark Rawson, Chairperson Charles Stevenson, Rob Schultz, Jennifer Metz, and Jim Lopes ABSENT: Mark Chandler STAFF: Associate Planners Peggy Mandeville, Pam Ricci, John Shoals PROJECTS: 1. 879 Morro Street. MOD 44-99; Review of public art proposal for new Utilities Department Offices; C-C-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, applicant. Peggy Mandeville Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report recommending the Commission find that the proposed public art for 879 Morro Street meets the City’s Public Art Guidelines and recommending its construction to the City Council. The public hearing was opened. Susan Baasch, applicant’s representative, described the eight panels of stained glass which will be placed vertically on the store fronts and the 12-inch round matching piece. Sandra Johnson, the artist, explained that the 12-inch round medallion utilizes the department name and address above. Commr. Howard discussed the language on the building regarding the history of the first sewer systems and suggested that it might be changed since other cultures had also been credited with the first sewer system. She said that this is a lovely idea to tie back to history and make it educational. The public hearing closed. Commrs. Lopes, Shultz, Rawson and Metz said that they liked the project. On motion by Commr. Howard and seconded by Commr. Rawson, the ARC moved to grant approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements, as noted in the follow-up letter to the applicant. ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 2 AYES: Commrs. Howard, Rawson, Stevenson, Schultz, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 2. 2855 McMillan Avenue. ARC 20-00; Review of plans to construct a new industrial building with caretaker’s apartment, consideration of an exception to the City’s Creek Setback Ordinance, and environmental review; M zone; Mike Leicester, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission approve the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and approve the project, including a creek setback exception, based on findings, and subject to conditions. The public hearing was opened. Commr. Stevenson lower portion of the building that would need to be cut back. Pam Ricci noted that Neil Havlik, the city’s Natural Resources Manager, and Bob Bishop, of the Building Division, had worked with her on the design of the parking lot. Commr. Stevenson asked about the porous pavers and fossil filter in the parking area. Commr. Lopes asked for clarification on the location of the trash enclosure. Pam Ricci pointed out the location of the trash enclosure on plans and mentioned that the staff report suggested that it be moved closer to the front of the building. Commr. Lopes asked about the setback requirements. Pam Ricci said that there is not a setback requirement for the building from the other property lines. Mr. Volny, the owner of the neighboring property, felt that this building needed to be set back more from the driveway easement than shown. She indicated that there are no city ordinances requiring this, and that staff is not suggesting that the building needs to be set back further. She added that when Mr. Volny’s property was developed, there were plans for Morrison Street to continue through the site. Commr. Schultz asked about the easements on the property. Pam Ricci said that the driveway easement affected the northerly 25 feet of the property and that a 10 foot setback was shown from the building to the easement. ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 3 Commr. Stevenson said that if the trash enclosure were moved to the front of the site that it would be out of the easement, and mentioned that restrictions on the use of the easement were a private matter. Commr. Lopes asked if The public Works Department wanted the trash enclosure to be 12 feet wide, and Pam Ricci replied that the requirement came from San Luis Garbage. Commr. Lopes made reference to Condition 12 regarding leaving the existing willow adjacent to the creek bank and removing only broken limbs. Neil Havlik said that the willow is healthy and nothing further needs to be done. Joe Boud, applicant’s representative, said that the size of the trash enclosure may be different given the Garbage Company’s requirements. He said that he was agreeable to relocate the trash enclosure closer to the driveway. He pointed out why the building is as wide as proposed in order to allow for parking stall length and back-up. He indicated that some of the landscaping would need to be eliminated along the access driveway. Dan Rutledge, Mr. Volny’s property representative, said that the property serves as a turnaround for truck traffic and that landscaping along the driveway would not last. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes said that he agreed with the staff recommendation and felt that some scaling back of the building is possible. He also said that mitigation measures should be consistent with the applicant’s agreement. Commr. Schultz said that he could not support the creek setback exceptions, and asked if there was a possibility of pushing the building closer to the driveway in the easement area. Commr. Rawson said that he could support the creek setback for the building as shown. Commr. Metz said that she would like to see how porous pavers work, especially with finger planter. She commented that it was unfortunate that the other property owner does not support landscaping along the driveway. Commr. Howard said that she was open to leaving the building as proposed and was in agreement with stucco as an option. Commr. Rawson mentioned that some adjacent properties have the creek culverted, and that the applicant should not be deprived of equivalent use of the property. Commr. Stevenson said that he felt the floor plan needs of applicant to have a bay in ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 4 this area is driving the particular design. Commr. Lopes said that he felt that a reduction in the shop area will not kill the project to accommodate compliance with the 20-foot setback. On motion by Commr. Lopes and seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC approved the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and granted final approval to the project, including approval of a creek setback exception from 20 feet to 10 feet for permeable parking spaces, based on findings, and subject to conditions, mitigation measures, and code requirements, as included in the follow-up letter sent to the applicant and available for review in the project file. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz, Howard and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Rawson and Metz ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 3. 3361 Broad Street. ARC 29-00; Review of 15 dwelling units (2 studio, 10 one- bedroom and 3 two-bedroom), parking, landscaping, and site improvements; and reaffirm the previously approved mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; R-2-S zone; George Palmer, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the Commission grant final approval to the project, including approval of a street yard exception, and the environmental document. The public hearing was opened. Tim Woodle, the applicant’s representative, mentioned that the project site is a very difficult one to develop, and that this project is the fourth project that he knows of proposed here. He noted that it is not required to have qualifying private open space areas for apartments. He added that a large common open space area is being provided in addition to the private areas. He said that he felt that the noise issues can be addressed with a variety of options. He described the site design as a “campus of forms peeking up the landscape.” He explained changes to further set back buildings from Rockview Place. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Schultz said that he likes the changes, including the open spaces provided. ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 5 Commr. Rawson said that it is a great project on a challenging site and said that he would give it final approval with some modifications to conditions. Commr. Metz remarked that she liked the building architecture, but was concerned with the design of the retaining wall giving limited access to care for plants. Commr. Howard said that the project is very nice and has made a good design even better. Commr. Lopes said that the architectural changes are a big plus and he supported the idea of screening landscaping for the wall. Commr. Stevenson commented that this is a superior project to past proposals. On motion by Commr. Schultz and seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC: A. Reaffirmed the Hearing Officer’s prior approval (June 19, 1998) of a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and adopted the Addendum; and B. Granted final approval to the project, based on findings, including those approving a reduced street yard setback on Rockview Place, and subject to conditions and code requirements as included in the follow-up letter sent to the applicant and available for review in the project file. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, Metz, Lopes, Rawson and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 6 4. 1150 Bishop Street. MOD 101-00; Review of a request to modify a previously approved house design to include a 1500 square foot attached deck; R-1-S zone; Matt Silva, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission continue review of the deck with direction. The public hearing was opened. Bill Robeson, on behalf of the applicant, explained the reasons that the deck is proposed, including circulation and moving large furniture. He noted that the deck also provides an outdoor use area. He circulated photos showing that the deck will be screened by rooflines and trees, with extensive landscaping at the base to help screen it from condo views. He mentioned that cable, rather than X-braces, could be used. He stated that the deck starts at grade level and extends out a maximum of 10 feet, and that its maximum height would be 8 feet. The deck will be painted a similar color to the house or to blend with vegetation. He noted that the deck is about 25 feet from the closest property line. He explained that the reasons for using lath is to accommodate vines and screen the piers. He closed by noting that the applicant is proposing to move the gazebo back. In response to a question from Commr. Lopes, Mr. Robeson said that they could make changes to open up the gazebo more. Mr. Robeson also stated that the property line was not shown accurately on submitted plans. Tom Kowalski, of 963 Bluebell, said that there would be no modifications to the building and that the deck addition was within coverage constraints. He said that the applicant could add sliding wall units in the gazebo to keep it mostly open, but allow for privacy when desired. John Hough, an uphill neighbor of Mr. Silva, said that he felt the deck plans were anticipated and up to each individual homeowner to pursue. He indicated that he was supportive of the design. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Rawson said that he supports the deck design and that landscaping could help screen it. He suggested the addition of an overhang on the gazebo to match the house and stated that horizontal posts are another tool to help mask piers, and more substantial piers would add grounding. ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 7 Commr. Metz said that landscaping would be a cost effective way to screen the deck. Commr. Howard felt that the deck was very sensible and seems needed and suggested that it was necessary to have wood lath for screening. Commr. Lopes stated that the project was an opportunity to add some landscaping to the back of the site. He also agreed with Commr. Rawson’s comments. Commr. Schultz said that the bulk of the gazebo was a concern. Commr. Stevenson said that landscaping is key to screening, and that something is needed to add mass to the base of the deck, such as horizontal siding. Commr. Metz suggested the use of large spreading foundation plantings at the base of the deck. On motion by Commr. Schultz and seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC granted final approval to add a deck, gazebo and stairs to the rear of the house on a sensitive site, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Conditions 1. The applicant shall detailed elevations and floor plans for the project which show: a. An eave overhang on the gazebo which matches that of the main house; b. Use of lattice, with a tight weave pattern, with the addition of vines for screening of under deck areas. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan, which includes shrubs to screen the sub-floor area of the decking from neighboring properties, and vines to trail up lattice screens. 3. The applicant shall modify the gazebo design to add sliding wall units for screening on the west side and open areas on all three other sides. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Rawson, Howard, Metz and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Schultz ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 8 ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 5. 1243 Monterey Street. ARC 38-00; Review of a proposed 3,700 square foot office/retail building; C-R zone; John Hough and John Wilson, applicants. Whitney McIlvaine John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval based on findings and subject to conditions. The public hearing was opened. Bob Tomaszewski, of Steve Pultz and Associates, gave a brief description of the project and explained his concerns with the three project conditions. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Stevenson asked the project architect about mechanical screening and building height and Bob Tomaszewski responded. Commr. Lopes asked Bob Tomaszewski about recessing the windows 4 inches as recommended by staff. Bob Tomaszewski said that he would prefer to recess windows 2 inches since to get a 4-inch recess the studs would need to be turned flat and structural integrity would be compromised. He said that he wanted to keep rigidity on that portion of the wall. Commr. Howard asked the project architect about re-orienting the building entry to face Monterey Street. Commr. Lopes asked about the proposed building colors, especially the lavender, and the project architect said that they wanted to do something different. Commr. Rawson thought it was a nice building, but believed the building would benefit from a 4-inch window recess. He liked the colors and design but suggested raising the middle of the parapet to screen the roof-mounted mechanical equipment. Commr. Metz liked the building and the colors. Commr. Howard liked the color and believed that building height should not be the ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 9 primary concern since this area is in transition. Commr. Lopes felt that the building should be a modern or post-modern style rather than Spanish Mediterranean style building. He encouraged the project architect to consider a different architectural style. He wanted to see a more modern approach and suggested recessing the windows and doorways. He felt the building design needed to have a building entry. Commr. Schultz liked the project but felt that the building needed an entrance on Monterey Street. Commr. Stevenson agreed with Commr. Lopes comment on architectural context. He also agreed that the area is in transition and felt that an entrance onto Monterey Street was important. On motion by Commr. Rawson and seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC granted final approval to the project as noted in the follow-up letter to the applicant. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Metz Howard, Rawson and Stevenson, NOES: Commr. Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 6. 2958 South Higuera Street. ARC 63-00; Review of a proposed automotive center which includes two new buildings with possible setback exceptions; C-S zone; Jules Rogoff, applicant. John Shoals John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission open the public hearing to take testimony and continue to a date uncertain with directions to the applicant as to project modifications and what should accompany the plans for final approval. The public hearing was opened. Jules Rogoff, the applicant, described the property and existing uses. He explained that the project's purpose is to have automotive-related businesses. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 10 Commr. Stevenson asked for clarification on grading and if it was necessary to have a driveway entry from South Higuera. Mr. Rogoff explained that he wants to continue using the building in its present location with the driveways. Commr. Lopes asked Mr. Rogoff how many cars would be in the showroom. Commr. Schultz asked how many cars the owner sells, and for a clarification of uses. Commr. Howard asked about parking and proposed changes. Commr. Rawson asked about the existing building and uses. Commr. Metz supported the building setback and the entry feature. She wanted more landscaping and more trees in the parking lot. She commented that the yellow accent building color was a bit bright. Commr. Metz supported entry only from South Higuera. Commr. Howard agreed with the reduced setback for buildings "B" and "C." She was concerned with the safety of cars entering and exiting South Higuera and supported the entry feature (gateway) as long as it did not obstruct visibility. She liked the 6-foot wall separating the project from the existing mobile homes to the south. Commr. Lopes felt that since the project represents a substantial improvement to a non- conforming structure, the existing building should be moved back to 10 feet (not 7 feet) from the street. He wanted the building to have more articulation to the façade. He felt there was too much development on the site and that the buildings should be reduced in floor area size with more landscaping. He questioned the reduced building setback for the rear buildings (Buildings "B" and "C") and asked staff to provide additional information on the interim Conservation Open Space Zoning on the adjacent property and how it might ultimately be developed. Commr. Rawson felt that the project would be a great improvement to the area and agreed with the staff recommendation. Commr. Stevenson said that he was concerned with the amount of activity and potential uses on the site. He said that there is a need to protect the creek with oil/sand separators or alternative solutions to filter runoff before it enters the creek. He commented that the project appears to be under-parked and over-developed. He also said that he felt this project is an opportunity to solve a current problem with the existing driveways and high-speed heavy volume traffic on South Higuera. On motion by Commr. Metz and seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC continued this matter to a date uncertain with direction that the applicant work with the Public Works Department to resolve vehicular access to the existing building and to revise project plans as follows: ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 11 1. replace parking stall #13 with on-site amenities for workers, such as outdoor employee seating; 2. install a 6-foot high masonry wall on the south property line from the existing building to the southwest property line; 3. extend the split-face wainscot along the entire base of all of the buildings; 4. use a less-reflective color for the roof; 5. use a decorative gutter and trim for all of the buildings; 6. place the steel entry structure outside of the street yard; 7. include additional raised landscape planters on the east side of Building “A”; 8. install a 3-foot tall earthen berm or plant a hedge of shrubs along South Higuera; 9. incorporate a landscape planter between Building “B” and parking stall #33; 10. revise the planter and parking stall layout on the east side of Building “B” to include a 4.5-foot wide planter and a 16-foot long parking stall; 11. increase the width of the landscape planter between the northerly property line and the car sales display from 2 to 5 feet to allow sufficient plant materials; 12. replace the parallel parking spaces on the west side of Building “A” and install landscape planters adjacent to the building; 13. relocate the monument sign to an area outside of the street yard. The ARC also directed staff to provide additional information on the adjacent property’s zoning (interim C/OS) to show how it might affect the building setbacks for the project. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Rawson, Lopes, Schultz, Metz and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 7. 1468 Foothill Boulevard. ARC 192-99; Review of four new structures proposed for apartments and group housing; R-3 zone; APS Architects, applicants. John Shoals ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 12 John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant schematic approval with direction on what information should accompany plans for final approval. The public hearing was opened. Mark Rawson of APS Architects clarified the 20-foot wide private road and indicated that they could move Building "A" to comply with the street yard setback. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Schultz asked about parking on the private road. Dorrie Larsen, of 2325 Park Land, noted that students already park on surrounding properties. Jim Nielsen, a neighbor, said that he is concerned. Commr. Howard liked the design and suggested replacing the French Grey with a warmer color. Commr. Lopes felt that Building "A" should meet the street yard standards. He was concerned with building overlook and privacy and suggested looking at the common area between the building and parking. He liked the colors and suggested moving the building back 6 feet from the private drive. He felt the Commission needed more details and wanted to see more trees. Commr. Schultz agreed with the street yard exception for Building "A," but was concerned with overlook and privacy. He was also concerned about the turnaround for Spot #33. He thought that Building "D" could be moved to provide more landscape. Commr. Metz wanted to see more color in both the landscape plan and plant materials. Commr. Stevenson felt it was a great project that served a great need (student housing). He said that he supported the smaller setback for the building closest to the street. On motion by Commr. Howard and seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC granted final approval to the project as noted in the follow-up letter to the applicant. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Stevenson, Schultz, Metz and Lopes NOES: None ARC Minutes August 21, 2000 Page 13 ABSTAIN: Commr. Rawson ABSENT: Commr. Chandler The motion passed. 8. 11955 Los Osos Valley Road. ARC 87-00; Study session to review plans for a 17-unit residential development consisting of attached and detached units; Jet- Ski Land Development, applicant. Peggy Mandeville This matter was continued without discussion to September 5, 2000. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission, scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretaries