Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-2001 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 30, 2001 - 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes, Rob Schultz, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard and Chairperson Charles Stevenson (one vacancy) Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners Pam Ricci and John Shoals PUBLIC COMMENT: Josephine Malone asked for clarification on the definition of a sign, and noted that she had particular concerns with certain signage in the downtown area. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that she put her questions and concerns down in writing, and alerted her to the update of the architectural guidelines as another opportunity to provide input. PROJECTS: 1. 1128 Garden Street. ARC 20-01; Review of a new commercial/residential building; C-C-H zone; Robert and Dora Carpenter, applicants. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. The public hearing was opened. Architect Tom Brajkovich explained how project plans evolved. He described the owners’ plans to have a period building that fits into the block. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 2 Helen Grau, owner of the Barrett building next door, questioned how the common property line wall would be constructed and had some concerns with limiting access to her roof. Tom Brajkovich explained how construction would work with the wall at property line. He noted that the parapet height of the building will be about 3.5 feet tall and that a fence is being considered, which will help address access concerns. Commr. Boudreau asked Mr. Brajkovich to confirm that there would be a plaster finish over the block at the bulkhead and Mr. Brajkovich confirmed this fact. Linnaea Phillips questioned the viability of the size of the retail space and the proposed height of the building. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Rawson said it was a great project and addition to the City. He suggested looking at splitting awnings into three components. He felt the height was appropriate and consistent with goals to infill. Commr. Boudreau agreed with Commr. Rawson’s comments and said he likes the project. Commr. Schultz thought the project would be a nice addition to the block, but had some concerns with had access issues and suggested considering the addition of a condition. Commr. Lopes said it was a good-looking project, but had some concerns with the design of the stairwell. He said he would like to see the awning changes suggested by Commr. Rawson. Commr. Howard liked the project and suggested letting the architect come up with an awning solution. She agreed with the building date being at the parapet. Commr. Stevenson summarized the ARC comments by stressing that authenticity of detailing is the greatest concern. On motion by Commr. Rawson, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to 10 conditions and 16 code requirements. The Commission was very complimentary of the design, feeling that it would fit in well with the historical context of its Garden Street setting. The ARC’s main concern was that particular attention be paid to building details to assure that they are finished in an authentic manner. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 3 AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Rawson. NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion passed. 2. 1460 Andrews Street. ARC 190-00; Review of a new house on a sensitive site; R-1-S zone; Greg Whilhelm, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. The public hearing was opened. Greg Wilhelm said that the design for the house is about 60 years old and is a pre- designed set of plans based on Taliesin West Wright design. Steve Caminiti indicated that he was available to answer questions. There were no comments from any member of the public. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard agreed with the staff report. Commr. Lopes said it is a very nice house and he liked the treatment of landscaping. Commr. Boudreau said it is an attractive house, but expressed some concern with the appearance of the garage doors. Commrs. Rawson, Stevenson and Schultz all indicated that it is a nice project. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to 5 conditions and 8 code requirements. The Commission liked the simple Prairie architectural style of the home and found that it would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 4 AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Rawson. NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion passed. 3. 3271 Higuera Street. ARC 190-00; Review of a new commercial building for an office furniture store; C-S-S zone; Michael Young and Brian Burnel, applicants. John Shoals John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to the conditions. Commr. Stevenson asked about parking within an existing easement at the easterly edge of the property, drainage issues and the screening of the backflow preventor. Associate Planner Shoals answered Commr. Stevenson’s questions. Commr. Lopes asked about the proposed location of the monument sign and backflow preventor, and the parking setback. He asked about the General Plan policy regarding parking between the building and street. Associate Planner Shoals answered Commr. Lopes’ questions. The public hearing was opened. Val Milosevic, project architect, noted that they submitted drainage calculations and had not heard from the Public Works Department. He concurred with the staff report, but asked the Commission to delete Condition #2 and noted that Condition #6 was no longer applicable. He indicated that they were open to discussing the metal canopy and landscaping at the easterly property line. He also noted that the applicants were in attendance. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 5 Steve Rarig described the project and highlighted the project revisions. He mentioned that the project team had met with the neighbors and had made adjustments to plans, including: relocating the loading dock from the rear to the side of the building, changing the building material from metal to stucco, and moving the trash enclosure from the rear to the side of the building. Commr. Schultz asked why they did not want to have a shared driveway with Sherwin- Williams or the other adjoining property. He also asked if they considered rotating the building. Commr. Howard asked if they would consider moving the building closer to the street. Commr. Lopes asked about the roll-up door. He asked the applicant to explain why the larger space did not have a roll-up door. Val Milosevic answered Commr. Lopes’ questions. Kathryn Cole spoke on behalf of the Margarita Villa Condominium homeowners. She stated Mr. Milosevic and Rarig met with the neighbors to discuss the project. She distributed pictures of the site and the Sherwin-Williams building to give the Commission an idea of the existing situation and to put the project into context. She noted that the neighbors are not against the project, but there were unanswered questions regarding building height, wall height, parking, landscaping and drainage. She wanted to know if the Commission or someone could provide a written response to the concerns raised in her letter. Associate Planner Shoals answered Ms. Cole’s questions on building height, the grading plans and the recommended findings on compatibility. She was also informed that her testimony (written and verbal) was part of the public record, and that she could obtain a copy of the meeting minutes. Carol Swiffel concurred with Ms. Cole’s comments and said she was concerned with impacts to property values, light and air. Mark Wiley concurred with the other neighbors. He asked about the possibility of requiring a bond to insure that if the project causes drainage problems that it can be fixed. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 6 The public hearing was closed. Commr. Lopes had concerns with the site design and building architecture. He made several suggestions, including: putting the building up towards the street with parking on the side and at the rear; locating the trash enclosure front of the building away from the residences; placing the backflow preventor and monument side outside of the street yard; and possibly integrating the preventor into the building. He felt that lighting is efficient given its limited locations and shielding. He felt the building design is oversimplified and could be improved with stepping in walls, eliminating the projecting parapet element at the northwest corner of the building, replacing the metal canopy with a canvas awning, incorporating trim and cornice; providing landscaping next to building. He also had questions regarding on the flagpole height and intended use. He suggested continuing the item with direction. Commr. Schultz agreed with most of Commr. Lopes' concerns and wanted to see the building moved forward or rotated. He also suggested continuing the matter to another meeting. Commr. Boudreau felt grading is important and that it needs to be resolved. He liked the building design if it is detailed right and the trellis (canopy) evolves into something substantial. He had questions on detailing, including parapet treatment, the shape and size of the score lines or reveal joints, and the connection between the windows and stucco accent panels. He liked having the landscaping as a boundary between two potentially incompatible uses and suggested the applicant work with the landscape architect to come up with appropriate trees and vegetation. Commr. Rawson concurred with Commr. Boudreau. He felt the site design and building architecture were acceptable. Commr. Howard did not have a problem with the building design, but she did feel that they could come up with a site design and landscaping that were more compatible with the adjacent residential use. Commr. Stevenson felt the building design was headed in the right direction and liked many of the design elements. He felt that grading was not resolved and needed to be addressed. He suggested moving one bay of parking to the rear of the building. He also felt that landscaping should be located outside of the drainage easement, and he liked the idea of placing landscaping between the driveway and southerly property line. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 7 On motion by Commr. Rawson, seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC continued this item to a date uncertain with the direction to the applicant to:  consider moving the building closer to the street with parking in the rear;  explore rotating the building so that the narrow side faces the street;  explore providing a connection to the adjacent parcels for reciprocal access;  resolve the grading issue and provide more details on project drainage;  provide additional building details, including door, window and parapet treatments;  consider simplifying the building architecture by eliminating the stucco accent panels at northwest corner of the building;  explore moving the trash enclosure to the front of the building;  provide more information on exterior lighting;  move the monument sign and backflow preventor device outside of the street yard;  provide more information on the flag pole (i.e., height and intended purpose); and  replace the canary island pine trees along the block wall with a less smaller tree and consider placing the trees next to the east side of the building. 4. 261 Sandercock Street. ARC 30-01 Review of a residential building with four studio apartments; R-2 zone; Greg Moore, applicant. John Shoals 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. Greg Moore gave the Commission some background information and described the project. Ernie Kim described the project and design issues. He felt that the design was consistent with the neighborhood and typical of apartment buildings. He explained that there would be some fill at the northerly property line to have the site drain towards the street. He answered the Commission’s questions on site design and building revisions. Tami Ercole, 2521 Sandercock, supported the project but had a question on required parking. The public hearing was closed. ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 8 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes asked about private space for each unit. He asked if the applicant considered putting the building at street yard with parking at the rear. He felt the building should be broken up and was in favor of the redesign. Commr. Howard suggested having the building closer to the street and encouraged the applicant to explore providing a common area closer to the building. She liked the location of the trash enclosure and the fence height was acceptable. She felt the floor plan and building was too long or wanted to know if the roof could be separated. Commr. Schultz likes the project. He suggested separating the building and providing a common area between the two structures. He was not too concerned with the wall height and other issues. Commr. Stevenson wanted to see the building moved up to the street and the exterior stairwell redesigned to a side-loaded stairway. He felt that building design was heading in the right direction, and that with some little adjustments it would be a very good project. He asked the applicant to consider locating the trash enclosure in the front yard. Commr. Boudreau liked the floor plan. He suggested moving the building up to the street and putting parking at rear with a 5-foot setback. He liked the idea of moving the building up to street yard with parking at rear and a centrally located common space. He suggested breaking up the roofline and orienting the front door of lower unit to face the street. He also suggested exploring providing private open space for each unit. Commr. Rawson concurred with the other Commissioners. He asked the applicant if they considered putting a house at front with other units in the rear. He asked about site drainage. On motion by Commr. Boudreau, seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC continued this item to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to:  move the building up to the street yard (20’-0”) and put parking at the rear of the site;  provide common open space between the building and parking area;  provide a wider planter along the westerly property line;  revise Unit “A” to have a front entry facing the street;  redesign the stairway to be a side-loaded stair with landing and cover;  break up the roof line by jogging the building at the center;  provide private open space for the units on the upper floor; and  provide a final landscape plan that calls out plant species and size; ARC Minutes April 30, 2001 Page 9 The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for Monday, May 7, 2001, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Pam Ricci and John Shoals, Recording Secretaries