Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2001 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 20, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Hana Novak, Rob Schultz, Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Zeljka Howard Staff: Associate Planners Pamela Ricci and Michael Codron ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: There was a request to adjust the agenda and move item #3 ahead of item #2. No objection. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder spoke about a petition she authored and circulated. One of the clauses concerned leaving Mitchell Park as is. The petition is a request to establish a new senior center at 1341 Nipomo Street. According to Mrs. Schroeder, seniors do not want to move to the old USO building (Recreation Center) because of the busy intersection of Santa Rosa and Mill streets. She suggested spending the $600,000 donation to expand 1341 Nipomo Street building, not plant more trees at Mitchell Park, and to name it (the senior center), The Ludwig Center. PROJECTS: 1. 1400 Osos Street. ARC 40-01; Study session to review the Mitchell Park Master Plan; PF-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department, applicant. (Michael Codron ) Michael Codron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending approval of the proposed plan subject to three conditions. He noted that two conditions can be accomplished with additional notes to the plan and one involves photo documentation, which would have to occur prior to any of the projects taking place. Paul LeSage, Director of Parks and Recreation, gave an overview of how and why the master plan was developed. He explained that the project is not in the current four-year capital plan, and is presented for review at the request of the City Council Paul LeSage discussed further changes to the park design such as removal of the crossing sidewalks, creating a band shell element, and installing wrought-iron fencing around the park area. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 2 Parks Commissioner Debbie Black addressed the ARC about the proposed master plan and offered to answer questions. Commr. Stevenson asked if any particular architectural style or landscape feature was decided on for the plan. Ms. Black replied that the plan is conceptual at this stage, but Victorian architecture is preferred. Commr. Lopes asked about the path around the site and the reason for taking out the crossing sidewalks. Mr. LeSage said that removing the existing sidewalks would create an open, unbroken green space to allow for informal group games and would give the park a more open, neighborhood feel. He noted this is not intended for organized sports play. Commr. Schultz expressed concern about the safety issue of proposed fencing and landscaping. Mr. LeSage said the vegetation would be kept low and that the fence was designed for safety purposes. Commr. Schultz asked if a half-court basketball element had been considered. Mr. LeSage replied that the park is too small for a basketball element and that it would not be in keeping with the historical Victorian design concept. Commr. Stevenson commented that it was premature to discuss a detailed analysis of the project. Commr. Boudreau asked what would be the disposition of the redwood forest element currently in the park. Ms. Black and Mr. LeSage both indicated that the trees would stay. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Schroeder felt that no money should not be spent on the park, but better spent on a senior center at 1341 Nipomo Street. Commr. Stevenson commented that there is currently no funding for the project. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes suggested that the Commission support certain aspects of the plan but not a fresh drawing board approach. He supported the idea of perimeter landscaping and fencing, improved entrance corners, and keeping the existing patio area. He did not support taking out the axial walkways or the center planting area, because they ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 3 provide a great circulation aspect to the neighborhood. He suggested placing the bandstand in the center. Axial sidewalks keep large group games from taking on a life of their own. He suggested adding more areas for picnic tables and small group set- ups. Commr. Rawson liked the project. He saw pros and cons to both axial sidewalks and perimeter path. He was supportive of the plan. Commr. Novak supported the concept of redesigning the park. She suggested taking a closer look at the meandering pathway, feeling it creates unusable spaces between pathway and fencing. She suggested a California bungalow style or something more in keeping with the style of the existing senior center building. She supported the concept of a neighborhood vegetable garden similar to Emerson Park. Commr. Boudreau stated that a buffer is key to the concept. Commr. Stevenson agreed with the concept of a master plan and was supportive of the general idea. Commr. Rawson made a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the master plan, based on the findings and conditions noted in the staff report. Second by Commr. Schultz. Commr. Lopes mentioned the plan indicates a garden in the shade of trees. Mr. LeSage said that a garden is one possible use of the site. Commr. Stevenson commented on the architectural style. The commissioners agreed that the architecture should match the existing building. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Lopes ABSENT: Commrs. Howard 2. 4451 Broad Street. ARC 80-01; Review of three new commercial buildings totaling 75,000 square feet; Aero Loop, LLC, applicant. (John Shoals) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending schematic approval because some important site details, such as lighting, signage and utility location are not included in the submitted plans. She noted that the “Alternatives” section of the staff report provides findings and conditions for final approval if the ARC is comfortable with certain items returning to staff for approval, and if signage returns to the commission at a later date. She noted one suggestion was that the base color of the building be a slightly darker shade than the gray included on the color board. She pointed out that some of the planters in the parking lot area don’t meet the standards included in the City’s Parking and Driveway Standards for 8-foot wide planter widths ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 4 when trees are planted. She felt the Commission should discuss and determine whether or not any further modifications to the planters are necessary. She noted a change/clarification to condition #13: One transit stop will have an installed shelter and one will not. Steven Pults, Project Architect, Michael Cripe, Landscape Architect, and Hamish Marshall, Owner, addressed the Commission and were in general agreement with the staff report, however they requested final approval. Mr. Pults said that about half of the parking lot planters are 8-feet wide and the other half are 6-feet wide. He would like to leave them as is, because the project would lose about seven parking spaces if all of the planters were 8-feet wide. He also said he would like to keep the color scheme as is. Commr. Lopes questioned the rock outcropping designed as an island with a water feature. He asked if other approaches had been considered, such as Mediterranean planting or central coast native. Mr. Marshall replied that research had been done concerning cleaning the rock and applying a sealant. He wants to incorporate the rock into the design. Commr. Lopes expressed concern about pedestrian walkways and access. Discussion was held concerning pedestrian walkways and employee rest areas. It was pointed out that each building has a rest area, and there is a seat wall around the fountain. Commr. Novak asked if there were any proposed tenants and what type of use is planned for the buildings. Mr. Marshall replied that building “F” is full and building “A” has interested tenants, but no leases have been signed as yet. The buildings are designed for office use. Commr. Lopes asked about the concrete benches and if bench backs were being considered. Mr. Pults and Mr. Cripe said that backs could be added. Commr. Lopes asked if the color of the metal flashings will stay as a darker gray, noting it tends to draw the eye. Mr. Pults replied that the darker gray is intended to match the roof. Commr. Boudreau requested clarification about the seating area near building “D” and the water feature. The public hearing was opened. There was no public comment. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 5 The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes appreciated the elegance of the design. He suggested planting (such as Mediterranean) around the rock cropping instead of a water feature. He also suggested placing fountains or alternate water features elsewhere on the project. He said he would like to see street tree planting along the sidewalk, if not in the sidewalk, that provides shade along Aerovista. He questioned the lack of pedestrian access between building “D” and building “A”. He liked the architecture and the setting. Commr. Boudreau said he was comfortable with the flashing issue. Commr. Novak expressed concern with the lack of employee break areas. She noted there is a lot of gray in the design and that it looks like there is a lot of metal. She liked the design, but questioned the colors. She agreed with Commr. Lopes’ comments about the sidewalk trees, and suggested increasing the size of the trees to 24-inch box. Mr. Marshall felt that they’d been generous with the landscaping. Commr. Novak had concerns with half the parking lot planters not being to code and echoed Commr. Lopes’ sentiment concerning the connection between buildings “A” and “D”. Commr. Lopes said he supports staff’s recommendation to accept schematic approval. Mr. Cripe said the entire lighting plan has already been submitted. The lights will be either 20 feet or lower per the submitted plan, and the fire risers will be in the buildings. Commr. Novak asked where the mechanical equipment, vaults and other auxiliary equipment will be located. Mr. Cripes replied that the mechanical equipment will be on the roof and screened. The only auxiliary equipment would be the backflow prevention device for the fire equipment and its location will be determined prior to permit approval by the Fire Department. He noted he would be happy to screen them when the time arises. Commr. Lopes referred to condition #6, which says that those things will be provided to the satisfaction of the ARC and the City Fire Chief, and suggested that the applicants want the condition to say that the aforementioned items be completed to the satisfaction of staff. Ms. Ricci said that could probably hold true for condition #8 as well, provided the ARC is comfortable with the Sign Regulations setting the precedent for program design. There was discussion about conditions of approval.. It was determined that conditions #6 and #8 can be returned to staff, but that signage issues be returned to the ARC for final approval. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 6 Commr. Stevenson felt that the architecture is interesting, elegant and fits the airport area. He had mixed feelings about the water feature around the rock. Commr. Lopes asked if the moat were to keep people off the rock. Mr. Marshall said the idea was that the water would shoot up and run off the rock. On motion by Commr. Boudreau to grant final approval to the project based on the findings and subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, with the following changes: Condition # 6 and #8; modify to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director instead of the ARC. Condition #9; return just to the ARC. Condition #13; as directed by Public Works Department. Add condition #16; provide a pedestrian link between buildings “D” and “A”. Add condition #17; provide additional street trees adjacent to the sidewalk along Aerovista for shade relief. Add condition #18; Designate selected areas for benches with backs, such as 1-2 per building. There was discussion of tree planters. Condition #4; leave as is. Second by Commr. Rawson. There was discussion concerning break areas and the fountain. Change condition #5 to say: provide outdoor break areas at optimal locations on the south and/or east side of buildings of varying sizes. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard 3. 221 Madonna Road. ARC 25-01; Review of a proposal to redevelop the existing Madonna Plaza shopping center site and review of the center’s sign program; C-R zone; Urban Retail Development, applicant. (Pam Ricci) ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 7 Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval based on findings, conditions and code requirements. Commr. Lopes felt the entryways on shops “K” and “L” should have some kind of embellishment; recessing would be one solution, but there are others. He also mentioned the lighting, noting they should they follow the model of Ralph’s, and possibly having feature lights. There was discussion of parking lot, wall and feature lighting, style and height. Conditions 11 and 16 discuss lighting plans and suggestions. There was also discussion of trim elements as outlined in the staff report. Vic Montgomery said he hoped it was apparent that a lot of progress had been made addressing the conditions. He discussed the following conditions: Condition 1 – He checked with the San Luis Police Department concerning safety in the parking lot. There have been no reported accidents in the parking lot. He expressed concerns that eliminating the northernmost bay would affect the lease-ability of shops in the “L” building. He did not feel there was a need for an additional parallel walkway that dead-ends. He added that this is a regional shopping center and does not feel that people will show up on bicycles to utilize the shops. He mentioned that to obtain the walkway in front of Sears would require obtaining a concession from Sears to remove parking in front of their store. He asked the Commission not to eliminate the long bay of parking. Stephen Rigor agreed with most of the conditions. There was discussion of condition 4; colors of walkway, stamp patterns and accents to sidewalk areas. Condition 6 – Mr. Rigor said he is willing to work with staff to come to a compromise. They are okay with conditions 5, and 7 through 13. Condition 14 concerning the landscaping in the back was discussed. He said he would like to stay away from that. The area is a PG&E easement and a high traffic area for delivery trucks. There was discussion of primary truck loading areas. Mr. Rigor felt that the trees would be in the way of the trucks making deliveries. He noted the view from Highway 101 is shielded by bushes and the trees would have to be fairly large, over 12 feet to be seen over the existing hedge. Condition 19 concerning the bike lockers location was discussed. Mr. Rigor felt that bike lockers would detract from the overall appearance. He would like to place the bike lockers in the back of the building and utilize racks in front. Mr. Montgomery discussed the El Mercado entry adjacent to SEARS. He noted that SEARS has agreed to relocate it further south on El Mercado which would allow for a raised planter along the area, thereby blocking the driveway and connecting the decorative paving to the existing decorative paving. Ms. Ricci said that staff supports that change. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 8 There was discussion concerning a new entry in the Sears parking lot and the landscaping around Sears. Commr. Lopes discussed cornices and recesses instead of tile, more use of medallions on columns between arches, and original artwork for architectural features. Mr. Rigor replied that Best Buy is open to suggestions from the Commission. Commr. Boudreau suggested pre-cast medallions. Commr. Rawson suggested that the arched element over the entryway of Best Buy be continued into the store by enhancing the interior to match the exterior; perhaps by raising the ceiling and extending the tower description. Commr. Lopes suggested that the parking lot light standards would compliment the architecture if they were lowered to 20 feet. Mr. Montgomery replied that lowering the lights would result in more concentrated pools of light and the number of standards would have to be multiplied. He added that these changes would require more electrical placements and increase the cost. There was discussion about parking lot and exterior lighting. Commr. Lopes questioned which types of plants would be in front of Best Buy, and was informed that Melaluca is being suggested. There was discussion concerning the landscape plan. The public hearing was opened. No public comment. The public hearing was closed. Commr. Boudreau complimented the staff on their report. He agreed with Mr. Montgomery concerning an additional path for site circulation. He did not strongly support conditions #1 and #2, and was undecided on condition #14, noting he understands the utilitarian nature of the back. Commr. Schultz supported staff’s recommendation concerning conditions #1 and #2. He felt that condition #14 could be eliminated, and would like to see added landscaping along the far side of project. Discussion concerning planters in front of Sears and placing planters to allow for footpath around the planters ensued. Commr. Lopes expressed concerns about pedestrian walkways and intrusive planters next to walkways. He suggested curving the pathway to the opposite direction providing quicker access. He questioned the seat wall. It was noted there is a slope to 6-inches ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 9 above grade; small amphitheatre with anti-skateboard notches. Commr. Lopes suggested adding freestanding walls, which can be brought into the patio area to protect pedestrians from the wind. Discussion concerning walls blocking views took place. It was noted that similar wind screen walls did not work at the Promenade. Commr. Lopes was in support of angled parking in front of shop “L”, but suggested moving the landscaping back. He felt there needed to be a sidewalk next to the parking spaces. Commr. Novak expressed concerns with finding #3, which would allow for some diamond-shaped tree wells. She suggested a small concrete strip through the landscaping, or possibly stepping-stones adjacent to parking spaces that border planters. She was disappointed with the flatwork proposed, and suggested a stamped concrete. She discussed adding taller trees in the back of the project to provide a middle ground to the oleander foreground and building background, and prevent the area from looking generic. Commr. Rawson presented suggestions regarding the hardscape, suggesting the addition of more potted plants or clusters of pots in varying sizes. He recommended that the color of the Best Buy entry columns be closer in value to the gable roof form. He agreed with the suggestion of changing tiles to medallions or another type of detail such as a simple recess. He felt the blue, arched element at shops L could be adapted to better tie it in with the building to the right of it. Commr. Schultz questioned the amount of potted plants, and suggested more potted plants. Commr. Stevenson liked the project and the color scheme. He was concerned about views of the project from the freeway, and supported Commr. Novak’s landscaping suggestions. There was discussion concerning the PG&E easement, including Pacific Bell’s right-of- way, the Gas Company’s right-of-way, as well as the main water line running through the area. It was noted that trees would hinder the easements considerably and that there was Caltrans right-of-way on the other side of the oleander, but trees would not be an option. Commr. Boudreau questioned whether or not a single, large tree could be planted that would mature over time. There was concern about future damage to the building. Further discussion about plantings in the back occurred. Ms. Ricci suggested a reasonable condition that allows for some additional planting that works outside of the easement. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 10 Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about whether other parking areas needed to be brought into compliance that were not presently affected by construction plans. Ms. Ricci felt the issue gets into the area of a reasonable nexus between the requirement and the project as proposed. Mr. Montgomery indicated he had encouraged, and continues to encourage, Sears and Mervyns to upgrade their stores. Commr. Rawson submitted a motion to grant final approval to the project based on the findings, conditions and code requirements in the staff report with some amended conditions. Condition #1 – Delete the condition, and in lieu of complete elimination, provide three peninsular planters on the northernmost bay of parking spaces on the Northwest corner of Sears.. Condition #2 – Delete. Condition #4 – Add; to include additional potted plants and benches to enhance entryways. Condition #16 – Add; to utilize soffett lights where there are entries and recessed areas. Also, add that fixtures that are shown to have excessive glare will not be permitted. Recommend that the metal halo light fixtures be limited to 50 to 75 watts. Consider the use of a limited variety of wall-mounted fixtures. Add Condition #20 – To consider the use of stepping-stones where applicable in island planters to allow pedestrian ingress and egress. Add Condition #21 – To consider other types of architectural treatments for the medallion features on the Best Buy building and where applicable on other buildings; possibly using recessed details and other types of features. Condition #19B – Bike lockers should be located in a less visible location. Commr. Boudreau second. There was discussion of the motion. Commr. Lopes discussed pedestrian flow around the front of building “L”. Condition #14 – Add: Provide large trees and shrubs where feasible. Add Condition #22 – Consider using color scheme at the entry of Best Buy that more closely relates the color of the pediment or gable feature with the two adjacent columns. Commr. Lopes commented that the proposed strawberry tree is notoriously messy. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 11 Add Condition #23 – Consider use of an alternative tree in lieu of strawberry tree where it poses a messy condition related to the hardscape. Commr. Lopes and Commr. Schultz suggested using additional planters to help block the wind. Discussion concerning planters and benches took place. Condition #4 – Enhance the entries by use of additional potted plants and benches. Call for question. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard 4. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of draft design guidelines for warehouse retail and large-scale commercial projects; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from August 6, 2001) (Pam Ricci, staff; Paul Crawford, consultant) Associate Planner, Pam Ricci, presented the staff report recommending the commission review the text, determine any necessary changes to cover issues, and provide direction on the graphics. Mr. Paul Crawford summarized revisions including changes made based on comments from City staff. He expressed a preference for generic graphics. Commr. Lopes discussed the use of the document and suggested adding a preamble to clarify this document’s relationship to the comprehensive guidelines. There was discussion about the guidelines and general agreement with Commr. Lopes’ suggestion. Commr. Boudreau felt that the graphic on page one should identify major and minor streets. Commr. Stevenson questioned the placement of “close to the street”, and “away from the street”. He noted that it should depend on where the development is located; i.e., residential or rural. Commr. Lopes suggested wording that provides for settings with deeper setbacks which may be appropriate where there are scenic views. Three was discussion concerning setbacks. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Crawford suggested the following as a concept: “Buildings should generally be parallel to adjoining streets. Buildings should also be placed as close to the street as required setbacks allow, although wider setbacks may be appropriate in areas in the city with wider, higher speed streets.” Commr. Stevenson expressed conflict with A1 and B1. He felt that B1 suggests there can be a lot of parking in front. Discussion about parking followed. Commr. Rawson suggested striking out the part that says development should be placed as close to the street as required setbacks, and instead retaining the part where it says large parking areas between the building and the street should generally be avoided. Commr. Lopes mentioned that the first paragraph, second to the last line; consider changing to: total building area in excess of 45,000 square feet. Ms. Ricci commented that the proposed guidelines are intended for larger retail buildings. Discussion about the overlap of larger retail development and smaller scale development took place. Commr. Lopes suggested adding to item # 3 on Page one, references to the Circulation and Open Space Elements as well. Commr. Stevenson suggested that on B1, page 2, to add; “no more than 50% covered parking can occur between the building and the street”. He was concerned that there were only three standards for parking area design and felt there should be more detail. Commr. Novak questioned provisions made for cart corrals and landscaping adjacent to the cart corrals. She also asked about the current standard for the percentage of landscaping. Ms. Ricci answered the current standard, with the exception of setback areas, is 5%. The need for better use of graphics to effectively convey the desire for a larger percentage of landscaping in parking lots was discussed. Commr. Lopes asked if the 6-foot minimum was wide enough for tree planting. He mentioned that maybe the guidelines should have planters at intervals on the facade of the building. Mr. Crawford commented that it might be better for the wall surface to have pedestrian oriented features and treat the sidewalk like a street and have street trees on the parking lot side. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 13 Commr. Schultz commented that some of the “shoulds” would be better if they were “shalls”. There was discussion concerning what constituted San Luis Obispo’s distinctive style. Commr. Lopes commented that figure 7 or figure 8 graphic should show more eye level perspectives. He commented on the graphic showing pedestrians being protected by bollards and questioned whether they might be more appropriate near an entrance. Commr. Stevenson commented that he liked the idea of figure # 6 on page 5. He then commented that the recesses called out in 3.a. on Page 5 should be greater than 5 feet; such as 20 feet. Commr. Lopes suggested that wording would work better if “must” was changed to should, or shall. There was discussion of tree wells and pedestrian walkways. Commr. Stevenson said that fig.7 doesn’t convey facade articulation. There was discussion about orienting entrances. Commr. Novak commented on page 5b, about providing views for pedestrian experience. She suggested making it a requirement through the use of the word “shall”. Commr. Boudreau suggested melding together figures 8 and 10. Commr. Lopes suggested that the first sentence in 3a could go under facade articulation, “Facades greater than 100 feet in length ... should be moved to vertical wall articulation.” Commr. Stevenson suggested incorporating several small graphics to illustrate guideline 6d; examples of corporate identification. There was discussion concerning a variety of building and wall features, elements with pediments and new, more concise graphics used. Commr. Lopes commented that lighting features should be located at pedestrian or human scale, i.e., 8 – 12 ft. high. Commr. Stevenson commented that under section F; Landscaping, there should be mention that use of tree clusters and that a graphic should be used to illustrate this concept. The public hearing was opened. There was no public comment. ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 Page 14 The public hearing was closed. Commr. Rawson presented a motion to continue the guidelines to the meeting of October 1, 2001, and to incorporate suggested changes. Second by Commr. Novak AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard Commr. Schultz presented a motion to accept the minutes from the ARC meeting of June 18, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commr. Novak. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nora O’Donnell, Recording Secretary