Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Hana Novak, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zeljka Howard, Mark Rawson, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Vice-Chair Jim Lopes Staff: Associate Planners Pam Ricci, and Philip Dunsmore, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce Commr. Howard arrived late, in time for Item 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were comments made from the public. PROJECTS: 1. 1541, 1545, 1549, 1553 and 1563 Huckleberry Lane. ARC MOD 26-00; Modification to approved ARC design to add decks, and possible building height exceptions; R-1-SP zone; R.W. Hertel, applicant. It was noted that Commr. Rawson had to abstain from Item 1, due to conflict of interest. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending approval of the modification to allow decks at the rear elevation of house designs on lots 27 through 31, based on findings and subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Commr. Boudreau noted that the height of the decks vary up to 8-feet, and asked what the shortest point would be. Planner Dunsmore replied approximately two-feet. Commr. Schultz asked how anyone could monitor and ensure a shrub height will reach 12-feet within 3-5 years. Planner Dunsmore explained they would select specific varieties and an irrigation plan to help them get to that point. The growth of the landscaping would be monitored. Commr. Schultz asked if they would consider applying CC&R’s to this area. Planner Dunsmore replied that was possible. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern with condition 8 of the original approval. \[The developer shall submit a landscape concept plan showing fencing and landscaping ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 2 along the double frontage lots on Spanish Oaks Drive to the Community Development staff for approval. The plan shall show wrought-iron fencing at the top of the 2-to-1 slope and multi-layered landscaping (between the fencing and street) to screen the rear of the houses, including foundations and decks. The developer shall install the fencing and landscaping, and record a landscape maintenance easement over this area with the requirement that the homeowner’s association maintain landscaping in this highly visible area. The developer shall also prepare a palette of plant materials to be used by the property owners with rear yards adjacent to this sensitive area.\], and asked why this issue wasn’t brought to staff’s attention in the beginning. He questioned what the new average finish grade would be and asked for the proposed height of these buildings. Planner Dunsmore explained the average height is at 25-feet when measured with the method of average grade below. Commr. Schultz suggested they require that the original Condition 8 be applied and changed to include a requirement for CC&R’s to ensure this area maintains landscaping. Commr. Boudreau commented when fast growth is required, it brings a lower quality of plant. He suggested getting something that would grow on the bottom of the deck. Chairperson Stevenson suggested having a revised landscape plan. He asked if original Condition 9 \[The landscape screening along Orcutt Road and on the sloped area of the double-frontage lots on Spanish Oaks Drive shall be installed prior to the construction of any houses on the Huckleberry Lane and Populus Avenue.\] was enforced. Planner Dunsmore replied no. Commr. Novak asked how these conditions are enforced. Planner Dunsmore explained that the original project planner is no longer with the City. When a change of staff occurs, the new planner doesn’t necessarily realize all the items that were previously incorporated at the same time of construction. Chairperson Stevenson noted that in order to go forward with this project, the applicant must comply with these conditions, and that a revised concept plan is required to be submitted. Lauren Luker, APS Architects, 444 Higuera Street, agreed with the comments and conditions recommended by the staff. She explained the height issue is correct and they would not be raising the height anymore. She noted that the slope is steeper than initially thought. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was a conceptual plan submitted as part of a prior approval for this area. Ms. Luker replied she would ask the project architect. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 3 Chairperson Stevenson asked Ms. Luker if she was aware of the condition requiring a landscape maintenance easement. Jim Burns, R.W. Hertel, replied that the landscape maintenance easement is in place. Commr. Boudreau questioned the kind of look they were attempting on the trellis. Ms. Luker explained that staff recommended a metal trellis or a substantial wooden trellis. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the trellis was to provide vines to grow on it. Ms. Luker replied yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson suggested that staff look at the conditions very carefully to make sure they are complied with. He stated he would like the concept plan to come back to the Commission for further review. Commr. Novak stated she would like certification that the landscape plan will meet the condition that the height of the mature trees and shrubs reach 12-feet within 3-5 years. Commr. Boudreau felt that plant selection should be based on more ultimate performance rather than rapid growth. Chairperson Stevenson stated he would like this to be resolved before any occupancy is granted. Commr. Schultz moved to approve the modification to allow a deck at the rear elevation of the house designs on lots 27 through 31, based on findings and subject to conditions in the staff report, with a change to the condition; that the modified landscape plan shall come back to the ARC for approval and final occupancy permits shall not be issued until approval is granted by the ARC, and that the revised landscape plan shall comply with previous conditions 8 & 9. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commr. Schultz, Boudreau, Novak, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Lopes and Howard ABSTAIN: Commr. Rawson The motion carried 4-0. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 4 2. 190 Stenner Street. ARC 165-01; Review of two-story duplex on a site with an existing residence (continued from December 17, 2001); R-4 zone; Matthew Farmer, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending continuance and offering direction to the applicant on proposed changes, with the applicant to return to the ARC with a final project design incorporating staff and ARC recommendations. Lenny Grant, Project Architect, expressed his appreciation for the comments made from the Commission and asked for support of the changes that were made. Chairperson Stevenson noted his concern with the narrow driveway and the ability to back out safely. Matthew Farmer, property owner, noted they are compliant with the conditions. He stated they were presenting an amended project based on the suggestions of the board and the recommendations included additional access, which they have provided. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a vehicle entering space 4 would have to maneuver to get into the backup space. Mr. Farmer explained they would have to backup and initiate a turn towards the backup space. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau felt this is a mediocre design which is very difficult to maneuver. Commr. Rawson suggested that the backup space be switched with space 3 to improve the parking. Chairperson Stevenson noted he could accept the narrow driveway. Commr. Novak noted there were concerns expressed previously with upgrading the appearance. She felt such attempts haven’t done much to the appearance of the building. Mr. Farmer explained a color scheme was submitted for the new apartments, and the siding and the existing house would match. Commr. Novak suggested expanding the landscaping so it goes along the entire front of the existing house. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Farmer replied he would support that. Commr. Novak moved to continue the project with direction to reconfigure the building so it is more rectangular and have a scheme where all the parking heads in a forward direction, and add an additional condition to extend the landscaping along the entire front of the existing house. Seconded by Commr. Rawson. AYES: Commr. Novak, Rawson, Boudreau, Schultz, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Lopes and Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. 3. 12395 Los Osos Valley Road. ARC 173-00; Conceptual review of design for Costco Store; Costco Wholesale, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and requested the Commission offer direction to the applicant on a preferred design scenario for site layout, building elevations and general design features. Kent McKently, Costco Architect, explained the history behind the project. He stated there have been separate submittals to the Planning Department and after having a Design Review meeting, it was recommended they revise the location of the building. He explained they decided to get a conceptual design approved by Alex Madonna after the DRC meeting, and discussed the overall site layout. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there is going to be a pedestrian connection. Planner Dunsmore explained there is a plan for pedestrian linkage that is shown on the Duvall South plan. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the grade change from Duvall South is very dramatic. Mr. McKently agreed and explained it varies 6-feet. Mr. Burtock noted the circulation coming off of the main drive does not focus everyone to the front of the warehouse. Mr. McKently explained the concept of the landscaping is to have the trees look like an orchard. They will provide enough space for the widths of the planters. Commr. Schultz noted they are further back than the existing Home Depot building and asked if there would be a cut into the hill for this Costco. Mr. Clemens replied yes. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 6 Chairperson Stevenson asked if a sound wall is being considered, which is relative to the residents, and asked how much of a wall would be needed. Planner Dunsmore explained there is going to be a sound wall at the back of the Duvall Ranch that will be 6 to 8-feet high. Mr. McKently explained there would be a residential backyard wall above the grade change. Commr. Rawson suggested they regroup their landscape islands to meet City standards of six spaces per island. He suggested they plant a tree on each end of the island to have more of a canopy effect. Mr. McKently agreed with this suggestion. There was much discussion on the circulation and access for pedestrians. Commr. Novak questioned the outdoor use area and the focal point adjacent to major building entrances, as well as provisions of amenities such as water feature benches, landscaped area, and a public square. Mr. McKently referred to the map and explained where each of these areas is located. Commr. Boudreau suggested generating some landscaping relief with significant size either directly adjacent to the building or on the other side of the main drive isle. Commr. Novak suggested there be a separation between the drive isle and the sidewalk to provide a sense of security. She suggested a buffer between the drive isle and the outdoor eating space. Mr. Burtock explained they use zero face curbs for the loading zone and the customers. Chairperson Stevenson asked if anyone could stop on the drive isle for loading. Mr. McKently replied yes. There was much discussion on the curb issue, tree wells, parking and driveway. Peter Clemens, site architect, presented the building design plans. He explained one of the main concept design issues of the building is to be site specific. He noted the site has agricultural history. Commr. Boudreau stated he would be looking how the trees would play into the scheme of the architecture. Commr. Schultz felt the tire installation facility on LOVR is a very unattractive site and would like to see it placed in the back on the other side of the site. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 7 Mr. McKently explained the Goleta orientation is identical to what is being proposed. Chairperson Stevenson stated it is not attractive for this much of the building to have an open service bay. Mr. Clemens stated they would take a look at this. Chairperson Stevenson commented they are looking for a high-quality look for this end of the building. Mr. Clemens explained there is efficiency to these structures; there is a metal building that is inserted inside the frame of the buildings. Commr. Schultz opposed a tire installation area being visible from LOVR. Commr. Rawson commented that if the facade had some articulation, he would not be so rigid on the 20-foot in and out. There was much discussion on the tire installation area and the articulation façade. Commr. Howard commented that visual but functional is an important element. Mr. McKently discussed the food service court and the pedestrian walkways. Commr. Novak suggested having the emphasis be on pedestrian spaces without compromising them and to accommodate all the other amenities that need to fit into the site. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the architecture of the gas station canopy and facility should be of the same quality as with the material features and colors of the building. Commr. Novak suggested having cart corral trellis’s over the cart corals to break up the sea of asphalt. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chuck Snyder, SLO, asked if they were limiting parking. Chairperson Stevenson explained that the City Council adopted a limit on the number of parking spaces they must have, and it was less than what they wanted. Jay (inaudible), SLO, asked how they will accommodate day parking if the parking area is full, and asked where the overflow parking would be. Planner Dunsmore explained there would be 700 spaces allowed, which is one space per two hundred square feet of gross floor area. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 8 There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau asked what the next step is for this project. Planner Dunsmore replied schematic design. Mr. Burtock asked if there is an architectural style that the Commission is looking for. Chairperson Stevenson explained there are many elements in the Goleta design that appeal to him. He commented the highlight of articulation is the historical contact of the mission look. Mr. Clemens asked if concrete block and wood trusses would work as the materials. Chairperson Stevenson felt the details presented look nice and felt stucco would be more appropriate. Commr. Novak suggested canvas awnings for a softer touch. Chairperson Stevenson commented that darker hues would be his choices for colors, which tend to recede the building rather than advancing it from view. He suggested a different color scheme. Commr. Boudreau commented he would like to see the entire building so they could get a better perspective. Mr. Clemens replied they would have it for the next meeting. There were no motions made. 4. 2223 Monterey Street. ARC 122-01; Conceptual review of renovation of a historic motel and construction of new motel units, conference room and spa; C-T-S zone; John and Carole King and Rob Rossi, applicants. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the applicant’s team to present the project and identify changes that were made in response to previous ARC and neighbor comments, and asking the Commission to provide preliminary comments on overall site planning and building design. Dave Watson, Planner with King Ventures, explained the project involves two distinctive components; 1) the rehabilitation of the Motel Inn and 2) The Apple Farm expansion. He stated they would like feedback from the Commission and would come back with a design that maintains a distinctive character of the Motel Inn. He explained the second component is creating a distinctive addition for the Apple Farm. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 9 Commr. Novak asked about the existing buildings closes to the creek setback. Mr. Watson explained that these service buildings were proposed for demolition. Commr. Novak asked if they were planning on demolishing the courtyard bungalows and then reconstructing them in the exact manner. Mr. Watson replied that the bungalows would be rebuilt with the same footprints, but that the design and detailing would be enhanced beyond the originals. He went on to explain the issue of access on Monterey Street, noting he is proposing to the proposed access to the Trellis Court Entrance. Bob Richmond, Principal Architect, gave a presentation on the historical aspects of this project. He stated they would like to return these buildings back to their original character. He stated they feel the building designs and the landscape architecture work nicely together. Keith Hall, project architect, elaborated on the motivations for the current project design. Commr. Schultz asked what the distance is from the back bungalows to the nearest residence. Mr. Hall replied he did not know. Commr. Schultz asked if the residences in the back have fences. Mr. Richmond replied that some do have fences. Mr. Hall explained they have tried to locate project improvements out of the creek setback areas. Commr. Novak asked if there is a fence that is being proposed with this project along the rear of the site. Mr. Hall replied that a solid fence or wall is not being proposed. He explained that the Apple Farm expansion has a Victorian style. He mentioned that the parking is below building with a roof garden deck. Commr. Boudreau asked if the west elevation would be where the cars enter, and asked if the people would need to use the tower to go up. Mr. Hall replied yes. He presented a computerized model on video and explained the rehabilitation that will be done to the Motel Inn with the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chuck Snyder, 938 San Luis Drive, expressed his concerns with the creek walkway because of access and security issues. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 10 Chairperson Stevenson asked if he had a solution. Mr. Snyder felt a fence could solve the problem Commr. Schultz asked Mr. Snyder if his property boundaries extend across the creek. Mr. Snyder replied yes. John King, King Ventures, commented that in some areas, there is no access coming off the creek and in some areas you could walk down into the creek. He suggested they could fence off some of the areas where access would not be desirable. Mike Copeland, 1998 San Luis Drive, noted they have a problem with noise generated from customers using the walkway and coming out of the bar. There were no further public comments. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard expressed her thanks for the presentation and the research on this historical piece of property. She felt the two architectural styles in the context that was provided make sense. Commr. Boudreau stated he was impressed with the design and the in-depth portrayal of the project on the boards. He supports the two different architectural styles. Commr. Schultz stated the project is headed in the right direction, but felt there are some concerns that need to be addressed with the neighbors. Commr. Novak expressed some concern with the scale of Apple Farm II and wasn’t sure that it is appropriate for this site. She commented she would like to have seen a detailed visual analysis. She asked staff if the Fire Department hammerhead turn- around was allowed in the 20-foot creek setback area. Planner Ricci explained they have not fully evaluated the setback issue for the improvements, and is not sure if there is any need for an exception yet. Commr. Rawson commented that it is an outstanding project and expressed support for the two architectural styles. Chairperson Stevenson expressed his appreciation with the passion and devotion to the historical context and felt it is an outstanding effort. There were no motions made. 5. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapter 3 of the draft comprehensive update of the City’s design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. ARC Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 11 Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the Commission to provide preliminary comments and/or direction on Chapters 1 and 2, and to determine an upcoming date for the next review of the guidelines and identify which chapters will be covered. The Commission made a number of grammatical corrections and slight wording changes. Chairperson Stevenson suggested expanding on pg. 16 (2) insert employee break areas and pedestrian linkages. Commr. Rawson suggested putting something about color and intensity of lighting on pg. 19 (5). Commr. Howard suggested changing dominant with (visible) on pg. 20 (7-d). Chairperson Stevenson suggested striking (office) on pg. 32 (2-c), and suggested revised language on pg. 32 (2-d). Planner Ricci explained at the next meeting the next chapter is Downtown Design Guidelines. ACCEPTENCE OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of December 17 were accepted as corrected. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the ARC, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for March 4, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary