Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2001 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 1, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Rob Schultz, Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Hana Novak Staff: Associate Planner Pamela Ricci PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments from the public. PROJECTS: 1. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of design guidelines for warehouse retail and large- scale commercial projects; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval with any necessary revisions to be made by City staff and the consultant prior to consideration of the guidelines by the City Council. Paul Crawford, consultant, reported on changes made to the text of the guidelines, recommending final approval with direction to staff to make any additional changes as directed. Commr. Lopes asked if there was a Planning Commission recommendation to consider guidelines addressing mixed use development, and multi-storied buildings and structured parking. Ms. Ricci explained that the conclusion was that those areas are best covered under other sections of the comprehensive guidelines. Mr. Crawford commented that he believed the text reflects all the changes the Commission asked for, and felt that the guidelines were ready to go as is, given that there would be other opportunities for further refinement after going to the City Council with the ARC’s review of the comprehensive guidelines. Commr. Stevenson asked for clarification to the term refinement, and asked if that meant in the area of graphics. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Crawford replied that yes, there was not enough time to add more graphics prior to the Council’s review of the large-scale retail guidelines. There was discussion concerning graphics and directions for acceptability. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Mary Beth R. Schroeder of 2085 Wilding Lane felt her golden years are being disrupted by unnecessary growth, and that restrictions should be held on developers. She stated that some growth is purely promotional and that it depletes water and road resources. She concluded with the sentiments that the town is already bursting at the seams that she doesn’t want to see any more “Big Box” development and further over- influence of students in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Rade Radovich commented on the style of architecture for Big Box stores, and that it would be wise to take the Big Box out of the Big Box by giving it more character and integrity so it won’t look as intrusive. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS The ARC discussed the proposed guidelines on a page-by-page basis. Commr. Lopes expressed concern with the threshold of 45,000 sq. ft. He felt that 40,000 would be a better threshold. Ms. Ricci replied that 45,000 sq. ft. is the size stated in the proposed retail size ordinance, and the number may need to be modified to be consistent with whatever the Council ultimately approves. Commr. Rawson commented that he would support a lower threshold. Commr. Schultz asked what would happen should a developer present a plan for three 30,000 sq. ft. buildings for one lot. They technically would not fall under the proposed guidelines unless the total square footage was counted. There was discussion about square footage requirements. Mr. Crawford proposed that for the purposes of these guidelines, large-scale retail projects are those with individual buildings or total floor area in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. Further discussion concerning project size ensued. Ms. Ricci commented that the large-scale retail guidelines were intended to address projects with very large single buildings such as Home Depot and to compliment the ordinances already in place. Ultimately, the comprehensive guidelines will contain information to guide the development of other types of retail projects. She indicated that ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 3 many of the same architectural design principles can be applied to smaller projects as well. There was discussion about what constitutes some of the distinctive styles of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Crawford suggested including an appendix to the guidelines with photographs, which illustrates desirable design characteristics. There was discussion concerning parking and how the amount of street traffic should help decide how close to the street development should be, and whether parking for the development should be located to the front or side. There was discussion concerning the use of graphics and text. Commr. Boudreau commented that the text should be the main driving force and that nothing should be included there that the ARC would not want to be seen in the design of a project. Commr. Schultz presented a motion to grant final approval to the guidelines with the changes stated concerning the wording, and with the understanding that additional refinements to the graphics were needed. Second by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson, Howard, and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak Commr. Lopes presented a second motion to recommend the City Council consider the threshold size for the applicability of the guidelines to be 40,000 sq. ft. and to incorporate that into the ordinance as well. Second by Commr. Schultz. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz, Stevenson, and Howard NOES: Commrs. Boudreau and Rawson Absent: Commr. Novak Mr. Crawford requested clarification concerning the floor area threshold. There was discussion concerning the second motion and cumulative sq. ft. threshold. Commr. Stevenson suggested that the second motion be revised to reflect discussion. Commr. Lopes supported rewording the sentence in the second motion so that the square feet total does not reflect cumulative sq. ft., but that a suggestion is made to the City Council to consider a threshold of 40,000 sq. ft. Mr. Crawford suggested the following wording: “ For the purposes of these guidelines, large scale retail projects are those with individual buildings in excess of 40,000 sq. ft.” ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 4 Commr. Stevenson recommended clarifying the motions. Commr. Schultz restated his motion to grant final approval of the design guidelines with the change in the first sentence from 45,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. and that was with the intention that the graphics need to be reworked and added to. Commr. Stevenson suggested incorporating Mr. Crawford’s sentence for large-scale retail projects with individual buildings in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. Second by Commr. Lopes. No further discussion. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak 2. 771 Foothill Boulevard. ARC MI 47-01; Review of storefront changes to Albertson’s grocery store; C-N zone; Albertson’s, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. She clarified the following conditions: #2 could be deleted if the Commission did not feel it necessary. She noted that Condition #3 discussed matching the brick already used on the site, or the possibility of using a contrasting brick. She mentioned that Condition #5 was a suggestion to place a bench or seat wall along the left hand side of the elevation that faces Broad Street. She stated that the applicant is not in agreement with Condition #5 as it exceeds their budget for the project, and that Conditions #6 and #7, relate to the rear area of the store. She pointed out that the applicants had provided an exhibit showing the loading area and the recycling area with chain link fencing with slats. She concluded that staff recommended additional landscaping in front of the recycling area to match the landscaping of adjoining property. Mr. Pat Blote, RRM Design Group, spoke in support of the project. He said he agrees with most of the conditions, however would like approval to leave the elevations as submitted and have condition #2 deleted. Regarding Condition #3, he said the architect was able to find a brick, which closely matches the current brick, but Albertson’s is not opposed to the Commission’s decision if a contrasting color is preferred. Regarding Condition #5, he noted that the applicant is asking the Commission to approve the condition, but limit the improvements to plant materials and cleaning up of the area. The applicant submitted a larger scale plan, which addresses all the listed concerns pertaining to Condition #6.. There was discussion of condition #5. The applicant requested using only plantings to enhance the appearance of the Broad Street elevation, but not require a bench. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 5 The applicant asked for clarification on Condition #4 calling for a 4-foot wide clear walkway. Mr. Blote stated that he believed ADA requirements call for a 44-inch walkway. Commr. Stevenson stated that they would not specify 48 inches if the requirement were 44 inches. Discussion of width of walkway took place. Commr. Stevenson suggested adding a condition limiting the use of the walkway to cart storage and passage only. The public hearing was opened. Mary Beth. Schroeder questioned who the owner of the development was. Mr. Radovich commented about the brick and suggested that brick on the inside could be salvaged and used on the outside of the store. There was no further public comment and the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau asked about the intention of the landscape scheme. Mr. Blote commented that the plans proposed new landscaping in front of the recycle area and there was nothing specific about the Ramona landscape frontage except for the corner. The applicant would accept a condition about cleaning up or upgrading the street landscaping. Commr. Stevenson suggested a landscaping plan be submitted for the Ramona Street side, making the connection across the driveway complementary to what the church has done. Commr. Lopes mentioned that the plant pallet in place for the church is low growing, maybe 2 ft. in height. He felt that at the corner, the height should be taller, and the plans should specify large growing shrubs. Commr. Schultz presented a motion to grant final approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions as noted in the staff report, with the following changes:. Remove condition #2 completely. Condition #3, find a material which closely matches existing brick. Approve use of chain link fence with slats; change condition #7 to take out “in front of proposed recycling area”, and add a condition that a landscape plan be provided to the approval of the Community Development Director. Ms. Ricci asked if he wanted to modify that to say taller growing shrubs. Commr. Schultz replied yes. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 6 Second by Commr. Boudreau. Commr. Rawson suggested using a contrasting accent brick as opposed to matching current brick color/style. Discussion about brick color and style took place, and a suggestion to submit a color and materials board to staff was made. Commr. Schultz supported the change to condition #3, that a contrasting brick color be used, and encourage the applicant to use new brickwork to add interest, contrast and color to the exterior of the building. He added that banding or other design details are encouraged. Commr. Lopes suggested keeping a clear glass instead of bronze or tinted color. There was discussion about window tinting. Commr. Stevenson questioned the change to condition #5. Commr. Schultz amended motion to take out the bench or seat wall, and leave the rest of the condition as is. Commr. Rawson mentioned adding a suggestion to use clear glazing instead of a darker shade. There was discussion about windows and treatment. Mr. Blote asked if the condition could be related to being in compliance with State regulations. Commr. Schultz added to his motion to consider using clear glazing instead of bronze. Commr. Stevenson mentioned that he would like to see a condition that outside sales along the walkway not be allowed. There was discussion of storage and outside sales. Commr. Lopes suggested expanding Condition #4. Commr. Schultz amended the motion that Condition #4: have a four foot wide clear walkway in front of the building. There was discussion about the use of outdoor space in front of the store for barbeque sales. Ms. Ricci said that the store is required to obtain an administrative use permit for outdoor barbeque sales. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 7 Commr. Stevenson said that he would like to see a referral to the code enforcement officer to check into the sales and display of merchandise outside. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak 3. 221 Madonna Road. ARC 25-01; Review of a sign program for an approved redevelopment of the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center; C-R zone; Urban Retail Development, applicant. (Pam Ricci ) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending continuance, and giving direction with 14 conditions. She felt approval is premature, but direction is needed. Commr. Lopes asked about condition #11. Discussion about location and size of signage for secondary signs took place. Ms. Ricci suggested that letter heights be reduced from what the program called for. Commr. Lopes asked if the existing secondary sign heights were looked at, noting they are about 1 to 2 feet in height. Mr. Stephen Rigor said that the reason they removed the monument signs from the program was because they wanted the building signs to be done and ready for the center. The applicant wants additional time to work on the site signage. He agreed with most of staff recommendations. Regarding Condition # 2 concerning the Best Buy sign, he agreed that the plan was to have the stucco painted yellow with individual letters installed over the background. Staff asked that the rear sign be reduced from 47 to 37 square feet. Best Buy had no problem with that. He noted that the representative from Chandler signs was present to discuss Condition #11. Regarding Condition #13, Starbucks agreed to reduce their sign to fit between the posts above the door. He would like to discourage putting signage on the awning because of being striped, noting that other stores have solid color awnings. There was discussion about signage level and locations. Mr. Doug Hallan, Chandler Signs, Oceanside, California, spoke about Condition #11. st he stated that the sense of urgency relates to the client moving on November 1. His client’s desire is to maintain the logo element as a predominant feature because it ties in with the National chain. Commr. Lopes discussed the fact that Blockbuster shows three signs, where the plan calls for two signs. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Hallan felt they took the lead on the size and placement of signs; i.e. larger sign facing the major street. He noted he is willing to reduce the size and/or drop the logo. There was discussion concerning size and location of signage and letter size. Commr. Lopes presented a motion to continue the program with conditions presented by staff with some modifications: Condition # 5, for pad and shop buildings: Primary letters – 24” for first sign. Secondary signs – 18” for first letter and 12” for others. Condition # 10 – awning signs should be on valance only. There was discussion about signs looking appropriately proportionate in size and style. The Blockbuster sign was the focus of discussion. Commr. Lopes suggested that the Blockbuster sign on the west elevation be no larger than 18 inches. There was discussion of the Blockbuster sign. Commr. Stevenson summarized: 18-inches letters on west elevation, and a smaller ticket sign on the side facing McDonald’s, with the larger sign over the entry on the third side. There was discussion on agreement of letter size to be 12 inches for smaller signs. Commr. Stevenson commented on bringing the sign program back quickly to the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak 4. 3251 South Higuera Street. ARC 68-01; Review of a new 8,728 square foot commercial building and associated site improvements; C-S-S zone; John Brezden, applicant. (John Shoals) This item was continued to a date uncertain, without discussion. Commr. Lopes discussed a letter from Mr. Ken Schwartz concerning parkway medians, green space and working with the tree committee. He mentioned that it might be a good idea to have Mr. Schwartz attend a future ARC meeting and discuss his ideas. Commr. Schultz presented a motion to invite Mr. Schwartz to the next scheduled ARC meeting. Second by Commr. Howard. ARC Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 9 AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak Commr. Boudreau presented a motion to approve the minutes of July 16, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commr. Schultz. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak Commr. Boudreau presented a motion to approve the minutes of August 6, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commr. Schultz AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak Associate Planner Pam Ricci, presented the agenda forecast. Commr. Stevenson presented a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None Absent: Commr. Novak Meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nora O’Donnell Recording Secretary