Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2001 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Hana Novak, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zelijka Howard, Mark Rawson, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stephenson Absent: None Staff: Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand, Associate Planners Pam Ricci and John Shoals, Parks Director Paul Lesage PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chris Ivy, 127 Bridge Street, commented on the Big Box issue and was asked by a Council member to find out what the sizes of the Costco stores were around the countryside. There were no further comments from the public. Councilman Ken Schwartz gave a brief presentation on his ideas regarding city parkways, medians and greenways. 2. 889 Walnut Street. ARC 103-01; Clarification regarding a deck for a second-story unit; R-4 zone; Alex DeLeon, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the Commission for clarification on the allowed location of the deck for the upper level of a new duplex, which was approved previously. Commr. Novak asked if noise was an issue with regard to the rear deck. Associate Planner Ricci replied no. Commr. Novak asked if it was in compliance with the City’s standards. Associate Planner Ricci replied yes. Alex DeLeon, applicant, stated he misunderstood his original approval, thinking the commission supported either the front or rear decks. He understood that he could put the deck in the front if he obtained proper documentation on noise attenuation, or that he could put it in the rear if he decided on this location. Chairperson Stevenson stated he was under the same understanding as Mr. DeLeon. There was no public discussion on this item. Draft ARC Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes stated that a deck which is 4-feet deep is not appreciably deep and suggested it be deeper and not so wide. Mr. DeLeon stated that because the living area is towards the front and this is off the study area and the bedroom, he did not really consider this as a deck. Commr. Rawson asked if he would consider leaving part of the deck on the front. Associate Planner Ricci stated it has been the interpretation with some other projects that each individual unit within a project has a complying space where someone could be outside and be protected from noise. She indicated that if noise complaints on outdoor use spaces are provided, then the applicant has the option of providing additional outdoor use spaces that are unprotected if they are approved as part of the project. Chairperson Stevenson asked the applicant if he would prefer to have a deck in the front without the glass. Mr. DeLeon stated if he could do one or the other, and not both, he would rather put it in front. Commr. Rawson stated they could approve it with both decks as an option. Commr. Rawson moved to confirm that the approved Condition No. 3 does not prohibit the applicant from developing a rear deck for the upper duplex unit (Unit B), and allowed such a deck to be part of working drawings for the project, modifying Condition No. 3 as follows: 3. Proposed outdoor spaces for the two units shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Element. If a front deck is pursued for Unit B as its sole outdoor use area, then working drawings shall include a tempered glass system surrounding it as depicted on the faxed drawings from the applicant dated 8-28- 01. Working drawings shall include documentation on the noise attenuation characteristics of the proposed glass wall system. The applicant has the option of developing a rear deck for Unit B. With a complying rear deck for Unit B, then the applicant may in the future develop a front deck area for that unit without a tempered glass system. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Howard, Novak, Boudreau, Schultz, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Lopes ABSENT: None. The motion carried 6-1. 3. 4041 Broad Street. ARC 148-00; Review of a 105,000 sq. ft. commercial development consisting of a 102, 000 sq. ft. office park and 3,000 sq. ft. of gas station/car wash and parking; Michael Cannon, applicant. Draft ARC Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 3 Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report recommending approval of the development plan and schematic approval to the architectural plans with direction on landscape buffer/screen wall treatments for the convenience center, lighting, site furniture, and utility locations to return to the ARC. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the 20-foot setback area is paved rather than landscaped. Associate Planner Shoals stated that most of the setback area is landscaped, but that there are portions paved with asphalt. Commr. Lopes asked for some background information that City Council had regarding the carwash building. Planner Shoals stated that the service station and car wash were discussed during the PD process. To establish a list of uses on the site, the applicant presented a similar scenario to the Council. Staff also presented photographs of a service station in Rancho Cucamonga, which included walls and screening to minimize the effect of the carwash. Commr. Lopes asked if there had been an option of locating the carwash on the corner or on the street. Associate Planner stated the Rancho Cucamonga station had the convenience market on the corner but it did not include a carwash. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was a drawing without the trees showing the elevation. Associate Planner Shoals stated there is no drawing without the trees. Commr. Howard asked if there was an option of no carwash. Associate Planner Shoals stated the direction for this meeting was to lower the overall height of the carwash, to visibly screen it by extending the wing walls, and provide additional landscaping. He noted that the ARC did not have authority to deny the use, but it could deny the proposed design. Commr. Lopes asked if the Council has approved the carwash use. Associate Planner Shoals stated the Council approved a service station use, but did not give specific direction on the carwash use. Mike Cannon, applicant, stated the carwash was not only approved, but it was endorsed by the Council. Maurice Macare, BFGC, Architects, stated the direction they were given was to have parkway between the ultimate right-of-way line and the back of sidewalks so they could allow for the plants and the street trees. They were also asked to address the elevation Draft ARC Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 4 of the parking space and the 20-foot landscape area between Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. Bill Tuculet, BFGC Architects, stated the City Council was insistent that there be a berm on the corner, as well a building on the corner. He stated they placed the carwash in this corner to screen the canopy. George Garcia, Garcia Architect and Design, stated the Commission had directed them to provide parkways, particularly along Tank Farm Road. In order to accommodate the current parkway, and to maintain it in the future when a right turn lane is put in, a parkway will still remain. He explained that visibility and the height of the carwash was discussed previously. At that time they relocated the carwash back to the corner and created a building that is partially landscaping. He noted that the 20-feet setbacks were narrowed and tapered down at the throats. He stated staff gave a summary of potential items they would like incorporated into the building. Mr. Garcia noted they would add a shape feature in the rear of the building. The Commission gave some direction on what types of uses have been proposed and what the owners have proposed; a permanent structure, a barrel wall to the arbor which is intended not to be covered, and a trellis structure which will be covered by some sort of insidious vines. Chairperson Stevenson asked how deep the trellis is. Mr. Garcia indicated there were a variety of different schemes for the canopy. Commr. Lopes asked what the canopy’s overlay is on the floor plan. Mr. Garcia replied that the state rule is when the hose is extended it should be underneath the canopy. He stated that the trash enclosure would have a very light shelter on top and a barrel wall in the back of it, and the material would match the rest of the project. Chairperson Stevenson asked what experience the applicant has had with landscaping on the rooftop of this carwash. Mr. Garcia replied they have experience in waterproofing and the maintenance would be minimal because of access to the top of the roof. Chairperson Stevenson commented he was troubled by the issue and felt there should be a solution for collecting any spillage that may run on the concrete, noting they need to comply with NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Eliminations System) requirements. Commr. Schultz asked if the minimum fascia height of 36-inches or more is normally required for the metal steel beams. Mr. Garcia replied that given the size of the canopy, the typical minimum height is 14- inches. Draft ARC Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 5 Commr. Lopes asked if the U-glass is in an exposed location? Mr. Garcia replied it is a thermal glass that is designed for harsh exposure. Commr. Howard said she would like to see the canopy have a little more artistic value. Commr. Lopes asked what kind of detail is proposed on the side of the canopy. Mr. Garcia replied they are proposing a metal feature. Carol Florence, Oasis Architects, distributed a colored site plan of the landscape treatment of the corner, and displayed photographs of the type of plant material they are using. She stated they are going to add some structure to the landscaping. Chairperson Stevenson asked what is proposed behind the building. Ms. Florence replied there is soil to the building wall, and the building is acting as a retaining wall. She noted there would be an evergreen backdrop. Commr. Howard asked how long would it take for the view to be screened. Ms. Florence replied it would not take 20 years. She stated the trees they are using grow fast. There was much discussion about the landscaping. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Rawson liked the overall project but supported approving the office building portion of the project if the design of the convenience center and carwash couldn’t be resolved. In response to a question, Commr. Rawson stated that he didn’t have a problem with the 20-foot setback that was proposed. Commr. Howard complimented the applicant for very thoughtful details, but noted she has a problem with the principle of positioning a carwash at a focal point on which this site was designed since it is a very prominent location. Commr. Lopes felt there was enough information to make a decision on final approval of the project. He had a few concerns about the landscaping, but felt some conditions could be made to accommodate it. Commr. Schultz noted there is 60 feet from the corner to the carwash. Draft ARC Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 6 Associate Planner Shoals clarified that there is approximately 60 feet from the street corner to the carwash. Commr. Rawson made a motion to approve the development plan and grant final approval to the project based on findings and subject to conditions stated in the staff report with some modifications; with the addition of two findings: 4. The building height is compatible with the existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with the surrounding buildings. 5. The building height will not deprive existing uses of reasonable solar access given its location and the uses adjacent to the structure. Add conditions 14-18, as follows. 14. Revise the landscape plan to provide additional landscaping in front of the screen wall and to lessen the turf possibly using flowering vines and/or flowering ground cover at the roof of the carwash. 15. Revise the landscape plan by modifying plant spacing as needed to avoid hedges and to allow for full plant growth. 16. All backflow preventors, mechanical and utility equipment shall be fully screened with landscaping. 17. Revise the landscape plan by providing additional shrubs, groundcover and trees at the street corner to screen the carwash. 18. In addition to City requirements for collection and treatment of urban runoff, drainage underneath the canopy shall comply with the latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 requirements and NPDES Best Management Practices for mitigating potential point-source contaminants from fueling areas. (NPDES is a federal and state mandated permit program for the prevention of contaminated stormwater runoff from a fueling station.) Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Boudreau, Lopes, Schultz, and Chairperson Peterson NOES: Commrs. Novak and Howard ABSENT: None The motion carried 5-2. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the ARC, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001, at 5:00 p.m.