Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2001 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commrs. Hana Novak and Rob Schultz Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci and Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Irene Pierce, Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments on non-agenda items made. PROJECTS: 1. 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. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of the sign program for the approved redevelopment of the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center, based on findings and subject to conditions. She stated that the Commission initially reviewed the sign program on October 1st and continued action with extensive direction and discussion on the appropriate letter heights for the shop and pad buildings as well as specific proposals for new tenants on the remodeled bank building. She stated the direction included rectifying some inconsistencies between different criteria in the sign program, and making some specific recommendations on the bank building signs to have them better integrate with the building architecture. Stephen Rigor, R.R.M. Design Group, applicant’s representative, felt the conditions that staff has recommended were acceptable. Commr. Lopes noted the sign program estimates that the maximum height for signs for Ralphs and Mervyns is 36 inches. He asked how this is being revised per staff’s recommendations. Mr. Rigor replied that as he understood staff’s recommendation, it applied to the letter height of the secondary signs, not the primary signs. He noted that the reductions in the number of signs for Ralphs and Sears would only occur if these tenants redesigned their stores. Vice-Chair Lopes asked about the elevations for the new building and asked if the letters on the Starbucks Coffee sign on the right side are 12 inches high. Mr. Rigor confirmed the letters are 12 inches tall. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 2 Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the Starbucks letters are 18-inch on the other side of the building. Mr. Rigor replied they are 16 inches. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the north elevation faced Madonna Road. Mr. Rigor replied the primary sign faces Ralphs and the secondary sign faces the parking lot. Vice-Chair Lopes voiced his concern about the size of the letters and the size of the Starbucks Coffee sign facing Ralphs. Mr. Rigor stated that the McDonald’s and Gateway signs are actually significantly larger than the signs proposed. Chairperson Stevenson asked the applicant if he would be willing to have each tenant provide signs at a pedestrian scale for this level, possibly at eye level. Mr. Rigor asked if they were looking for a small window sign similar to the one at Starbucks. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the possibility of a business sign on the side of the entryway. Planner Ricci asked if the Commission wanted to make it a condition to require criteria, which would mandate that each tenant have a pedestrian sign. Chairperson Stevenson felt a condition should be imposed requiring possible criteria which should be included as part of the sign program. Planner Ricci asked if they wanted to have some type of pedestrian sign as a mandated part of their program. Chairperson Stevenson replied yes. Mr. Rigor stated the way the site is set up, you would see the main sign before you see the smaller projected sign. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public, and public comment session was closed. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there should be an emphasis on combining a pedestrian sign or a small wall sign projecting out of the store. Commr. Howard asked if this requirement has been placed on other businesses. Mr. Rigor replied that each project is different and they are improving by getting smaller signs. Planner Ricci stated there is criteria that allows them, but there has not been an absolute mandate that each tenant must have suspended or projecting pedestrian type of signs. Vice-Chair Lopes made a motion to grant final approval to the master building sign program at the Madonna Plaza based on findings and conditions in the staff report, and that condition 5 be amended to read: Criteria shall be added for awning (valence only), window, suspended and projecting signs, and low wall signs adjacent to an entry if a projecting sign is not used, as pedestrian scale signage option. Specifications on the size and design of these signs, consistent with the City’s sign regulations, shall return to the Community Development Director for review and approval. Each tenant space shall include one of the approved pedestrian-oriented types of signs in their individual signage proposal, Seconded by Commr. Rawson. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Rawson, Boudreau, Howard, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Novak and Schultz The motion carried 5-0. 2. Bike Trails – No Specific Address. ARC and ER 98-01; Review of the design for portions of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea bike trail and Railroad Safety bike trail, and environmental review, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville presented the staff report requesting input on the initial environmental studies and recommending approval of both plans. He stated the purpose of these route plans is to establish and identify some optional alignment for where the paths should go. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the bike path will run alongside the railroad 8-foot high fence. Eric Justesen replied there are several fence treatments proposed along the railroad right-of-way, depending upon the setback from the rail line, and that there were places where an 8-foot high fence will be required. Mike Sharrod stated the fence style nearest to the tracks is taller to keep the debris within the rail corridor. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 4 Chairperson Stevenson asked for a description of the baffling material. Mr. Sharrod replied it could be a variety of materials, but the purpose is to catch any of the debris that is thrown from the train. Mr. Justesen stated there is one section of the path that goes under the Mill Street Bridge where there is a narrow gap. He indicated that unless they were able to use the extra-wide bridge design this space would require another section of the 8-foot high fencing. Chairperson Stevenson asked how they were proposing to screen the 8-foot fence. Mr. Justesen replied that due to access and liability concerns, Union Pacific had concerns with certain types of planting in close proximity to the fencing. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there are any retaining walls that would be next to the bike path. Mr. Sharrod replied there are a couple of areas that require retaining walls. He noted that one case is at Johnson Avenue where it terminates into the Union Pacific right-of- way. He mentioned that one of the alternatives shows a separator pedestrian underpass, and in this case, they would have to retain the soil within this right-of-way. Vice-Chair Lopes noted that sheet 2 denotes a retaining wall. Mr. Sharrod replied that near the platform at the depot, there is not enough room or level area for a trail. He added that they have proposed a retaining wall near the access road that the Union Pacific maintenance crews use, providing the grade needed to get the bicyclists up to the trail. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if this would be a concrete retaining wall. Mr. Sharrod replied that, at this point, the retaining wall materials have not been selected. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if they would be looking for guidance from the ARC about the materials. Mr. Sharrod replied yes. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if all the bridges should be similar along the railroad, such as the Jennifer Street Bridge. Mr. Justesen stated they would all be prefab and use steel material similar to the Jennifer Street Bridge. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 5 Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the bridge that crosses Highway 101 to the Bob Jones Trail connects to a trail that goes across the McBride property. He felt this might be an unnecessary addition to the project. Transportation Planner Sanville stated that the bridge is not essential to making the system work. He noted that bicycles can enter signal light intersections and use street bikeways. He noted that ultimate plans to widen the Prado Road Bridge could include a cantilevered Class I bike bridge. Vice-Chair Lopes questioned the appearance of the potential bridge over Highway 101. Mr. Justesen replied that it would have a slight arch, and a fairly significant ramping system. Chairperson Stevenson voiced his concern on the section from Highway 101 to Foothill Boulevard along California Boulevard. He asked for some elaboration on the fence height for this section and asked if there is some associated landscaping proposed to help soften this area. Mr. Sharrod replied that this section has the benefit of a wider right-of-way area and the existing palms along California Boulevard. He believed that there was sufficient distance from the track to allow a design more similar to what currently exists on Orcutt Road, which is more of a wood rail fence. Chairperson Stevenson felt the palm trees are a good starting point. Mr. Sharrod stated there would be an opportunity to landscape through the corridor between the fence and California Boulevard. Transportation Planner Sanville referred to a drawing that shows the relationship of the wood rail fence. He noted there is a fairly generous area between the paths and the roadway. He stated the route plans do not specify a type of landscaping that would be planted there, but there is much opportunity to get something that would enhance that particular element. Mr. Justesen stated that one reason they did not show a lot of landscaping is because the palm trees drop much litter and there is a row of parking along California Blvd. with people getting in and out of their cars. He added that the path is intended to collect people that are trying to get to Cal Poly. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they would consider a screening fence that goes 5 or 6 feet high with vines. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if people would be getting out of their cars and walking over to the bike path to walk to Cal Poly. Mr. Justesen replied yes. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 6 Vice-Chair Lopes expressed concern with use of the bike paths by pedestrians. Mr. Justesen clarified that he felt there is not enough room between the palm trees and the curb to put in a separate sidewalk. He said they wanted to establish a multi-use trail that could be used for walking, biking, and blading. Chairperson Stevenson noted that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that cuts through from Montalban Street and Hathway Avenue on the other side of the tracks and felt this is going to be a very competitive trail with pedestrians. Mr. Justesen stated that because of the high amount of college access demand, the students that are coming onto the UP right-of-way from Murray Avenue are not crossing over the tracks, but walking or riding along the tracks. They have contemplated putting in a fence along the west side away from California Boulevard and creating another secondary channel. Chairperson Stevenson felt this is a good idea to try to route them along the tracks between the back of the houses and the tracks. Mr. Justesen stated until they work something out with Union Pacific, they do not know on which side of the tracks the bike bath is going. Commr. Boudreau stated that he would like to see the bike path itself get constructed. Mr. Justesen stated that amounts of available funding for the project were not known, but that the cost estimate section included the amenity package on an item-by-item basis. Chairperson Stevenson felt it is appropriate that they comment on the aesthetic portions of the paths. Vice-Chair Lopes asked about how well the landscaping and fencing along the Orcutt Road to the Sinsheimer part of the trail were doing. Transportation Planner Sanville noted a most difficult part has been the wire fence. He stated there is a lot of cross-track access and because people trespass, they cut the fence. He noted that as part of the second phase, they will be trying a new wire fence design with a square mesh. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the Jennifer Street Bridge has this same kind of mesh. Transportation Planner Sanville replied no. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if it has streetlights. Transportation Planner Sanville replied this was not going to be a lit bike path. PUBLIC COMMENTS: ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 7 Mary Beth Schroeder stated there are going to be a lot of unanticipated problems connected with this and asked that they think it over carefully. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the trail that goes across the Prado Road Bridge has enough room underneath to place an underpass. Mr. Sharrod replied there is room to get a path in, but it would trigger a series of environmental restraints. He noted there is a gravity-hung sewer line underneath, and it would be very expensive to move. Commr. Howard voiced her concern about the overpasses being too massive and asked how the silhouette of the railing would fit with the backdrop of the soft hillsides. Vice-Chair Lopes stated he would like to see the California Boulevard project include a parkway that would retain the palm trees and some kind of fence between the sidewalk and the trail, so the trail has its own place distinct from the sidewalk. Commr. Howard asked if it is necessary to parcel everything out. Vice-Chair Lopes replied yes. Commr. Howard questioned whether the cost justifies it, and felt that separating it limits the full use of this path. She asked if it is used by bicycles so much that it warrants separation. Chairperson Stevenson stated most bicycles are riding at about 15 miles per hour and he felt this is too fast for the bicyclist to try to avoid people walking. He stated people would have to be walking on the other side of the tracks, which would put more people on the bike path. Transportation Planner Sanville stated they have substantial redundancy on their systems along this particular segment. He stated they currently have on-street bike lanes along California Boulevard that function very well. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was a 12-foot path, could it be striped on the right side for walkers. Transportation Planner Sanville replied they could do this, but separate it by space. He stated they were glad that RRM looked at the embellished version because it helped define what property they needed to accommodate the long-term vision. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that the bridges and light décor should have something in common with their surroundings. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 8 Commr. Rawson moved to recommend that the ARC approve the proposed bike lanes for the Bob Jones City-to-Sea and Railroad Safety trail plans, and recommend the City Council approve and accept the plans submitted, with some suggestions to accept the initial study and some findings from staff. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Howard, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Novak and Schultz The motion carried 5-0. 3. 636 Toro Street. ARC 124-01; Review of a proposed triplex development on a site with an existing family home, and request for reduced side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet replacement garage; R-3 zone; Glenn Norkus, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of a setback exception, and schematic approval to the proposed project, with direction. In response to a question, Planner Ricci stated that there was an alternative plan to provide interior bicycle parking, but because of grading changes there would be adequate space under the front steps to provide secured bicycle parking, rather than on the interior. She noted that the interior area shown as bicycle parking could be used for laundry facilities and condition 3 could then be deleted. Chairperson Stevenson stated he did not support the garage being retained. Planner Ricci noted the project with the garage requires vehicles exiting these two spaces to back out onto the street, which is allowed by code. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the garage was rebuilt, would the door face inward or would it still face the street. Associate Planner Ricci replied that the doors would face the street. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested another way to screen the parking would be to put a short wall or fence along Space 4. Planner Ricci noted that the issue with Space 4 was that a vehicle cannot enter it in one maneuver, but backing up is not an issue. She stated that making the space compact (two feet shorter) would improve its maneuverability. Glenn Norkus, applicant, stated there was a concern with parking Space 4. He felt the parking space could be relocated on the existing slab in front of the garage where both egress and ingress would work. He felt that if the garage remains, the new project and the existing house are not going to be in harmony. He is not in favor of keeping the garage, but felt he would like to use some type of landscaping for the three spots that would be in view from the street. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 9 Chairperson Stevenson stated there is not a lot of support in keeping the garage. Mr. Norkus stated his decks will be cantilevered out 3 feet on the second floor. He noted that there would be structural design issues if the decks were cantilevered out another 4 feet. He voiced concern about cutting back the living space to further increase the size of the decks. Planner Ricci stated that there are beautiful views of the surrounding peaks from where the decks would be, and staff felt that they would be a great amenity to the units. Chairperson Stevenson asked if he has explored the option to have a cantilever off the back, which could allow for larger decks. Mr. Norkus replied that it would create setback problems. He said he wanted the new project to blend with the existing structure, and would like it to look like one unit and not like a separate unit. Chairperson Stevenson felt a deck would be an ideal situation if it could be designed in. He also asked if the applicant would consider lowering the finished floor of the building a couple of feet. Mr. Norkus replied that further lowering the building could require additional on-site retaining walls, and that the installation of these walls could affect the integrity of the existing walls on the adjacent property. Vice-Chair Lopes voiced his concern about maintaining the views out from the adjacent property to the rear over this property and felt it should be retained if at all possible. He asked the applicant if he wants to reduce the height on each floor. Mr. Norkus stated that with the existing views, most people will spend their time upstairs. He indicated that if he lowers the finish floor, he would run into problems with his bicycle storage. He noted that if he brought out the lower floor decks, it wouldn’t work with his parking, because the parking dictates how the project is going to lay out on the property. Commr. Boudreau noted an aesthetic issue with the little fins that hold the building up on the west elevation. He stated it would be an improvement to make them 14 inches wide instead of 6 inches and to have the porch open onto a mass of brick. He suggested that the parking area have some kind of transitional element before the building since they were so close. Planner Ricci noted that it takes more than one maneuver to access Space 4, so it does not comply with the City's Parking & Driveway Standards. Mr. Norkus stated that he was going to tone down the concrete with a color. Planner Ricci noted there would be a need for a low retaining wall along the back of the parking lot. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Norkus stated the parking spaces are set back 10 feet, and they are proposing sod rather than vegetation. Commr. Boudreau asked if it were feasible to have another space next to Space 4 closer to the street, and remove Spaces 1 and 5. There was much discussion on the parking issue and the placement of spaces. Mr. Norkus stated he would like to incorporate the decks and provide patio space in the back. In response to questions, Mr. Norkus noted they are planning to reside the existing house because he wants it to blend with the new structure. He reiterated that he would like it to look as one structure and not look like an addition to the existing structure. He also noted that there is a large amount of termite damage in the existing house. Chairperson Stevenson voiced his concern on the revised elevation, noting an abrupt change from the asphalt, and the lack of landscaping in front of the new building to buffer it. Commr. Rawson asked if the retaining wall at the very back of the site is a block wall that is 8 feet high. Planner Ricci replied it is between 4 and 5 feet tall. Commr. Boudreau asked how much dirt is behind the wall. Mr. Norkus replied there is sod behind it that comes up to the top of it. There was discussion on the elevation and the retaining wall. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Beth Schroeder asked how old the existing structure was and what the proposed use will be. Associate Planner Ricci replied it is going to be retained as a residence, and clarified that the property is zoned R-3. Dean Miller, 673 Pasatiempo, stated he owns the units next door, and he supports the request because it mitigates some poor planning issues that were created when the Sheri Apartments were originally built. He stated if there are balconies, there will be beach towels and wetsuits hanging from them, as well as on the stairways and the balconies below. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the property owner have a condition on the rental agreements to not hang wetsuits over the rail. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 11 The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planner Ricci asked if there was a consensus about the garage. Chairperson Stevenson stated he does not support the garage being rebuilt, and felt landscaping should be planted in front of the trash enclosure, to provide screening of parking. Planner Ricci stated that the dumpster and trash enclosure might be relocated to allow for some changes to the parking lot. Mr. Norkus noted that some of the new buildings in town have a trash enclosure right on the street and felt it is an eyesore, which is why his proposal has it located away from the street. Planner Ricci stated the trash area needs to have a designated area and should be screened from street views. Chairperson Stevenson agreed with staff’s recommendation about continuing the siding on all sides of the new building, but was troubled with the additional height. He suggested a solution by either lowering the grade or splitting the difference, but felt it may cause a problem with the rear retaining wall. Planner Ricci asked if they could build a lower retaining wall that could serve as a planter. Commr. Boudreau suggested having brick banding with the colored concrete in the parking lot. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there is a way to introduce landscaping somewhere in front of the building. Mr. Norkus replied a vine or shrub could be planted between the parking lot and the new building. Commr. Boudreau suggested introducing some trellis work in front of the columns. Planner Ricci suggested adding vine planting to a trellis. Commr. Boudreau suggested introducing a vine or some vertical type plant between the building and the parking, and adding some texture to the concrete. Commr. Rawson suggested the applicant go back and review the direction that the ARC has been discussing. ARC Minutes November 5, 2001 Page 12 Commr. Rawson made a motion to grant schematic approval based on the findings and conditions noted in the staff report, with the amendment to the conditions by deleting conditions 1, 2, & 3, and adding four conditions. Given the deletion of the first three conditions, it became necessary to renumber conditions. New Condition 6 called for the Applicant to study the relationship between the building and the driveway and explore the possibility of either dropping the finished floor of the building by some means of retaining at the rear, or creating additional space between the front of the building structure and the parking areas (suggested minimum of 6 feet) to allow for some type of transitional paving and landscaping. New Condition 7. The applicant shall explore revising the parking lot layout to increase the distance to the new building; Condition 8 would be to widen the wing-wall to the dimension of approximately 14 inches and to possibly add a trellis feature to the front of these wing-walls; Condition 9 would be to retain the existing siding material as much as practical on the existing residence; Condition 10 would be to maintain a consistent exterior elevation material on all four sides of the building. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commrs. Rawson, Boudreau, Howard, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Lopes, Novak, and Schultz The motion carried 4-0. Noted Commissioner Jim Lopes had to leave the meeting early. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the ARC, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 19, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irene Pierce Recording Secretary