Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zeljka Howard, Mark Rawson, Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Hana Novak Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Consultant Paul Crawford, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. PUBLIC COMENTS: Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street, gave a presentation as a member of the SLO Bicycle Committee. She explained that the Bicycle Advisory Committee had 14 volunteers surveying different bicycle problems in the City. She noted that the survey concluded that the amount of available bicycle parking is not sufficient. She requested that Transportation Planner Terry Sanville work with the ARC and the Bicycle Advisory Committee to further review some of these problems. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the projects where bicycle parking inadequacies were discovered were newer projects built within the last few years. Ms. Anderson replied yes, some of them were newer projects. Associate Planner Pam Ricci noted that she would be meeting with Planner Sanville to discuss bicycle parking and the concerns that the Bicycle Committee has. She explained the next Chapter of the guidelines that the ARC will be reviewing deals with site details, including bicycle parking. BUSINESS ITEM: 1. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapters 4 & 5 of the draft comprehensive update of the City’s design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report asking for comments from the ARC on the contents of the guidelines. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Commr. Howard asked how B-2 would affect landmark buildings. Planner Ricci explained that the Land Use Element has a section on downtown design, and read a specific policy dealing with building height. She suggested that some of these LUE policies be incorporated into the design guidelines. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 2 Chairperson Stevenson suggested an emphasis for “buildings and their setting” in Section 4.1, Goals for Downtown Design. He asked if goals from the Housing and Land Use Elements could be referenced to encourage mixed use under 4.2-B. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested it be a footnote. Chairperson Stevenson suggested there be a glossary of definitions. He asked what was meant by the word “duplicating” on 4.2-C. Mr. Crawford suggested the word “copy” rather than “duplicate”. Chairperson Stevenson suggested having clarification by definition under C-4. Commr. Rawson commented on how the term “Main Street Architecture” in the downtown should be defined. Chairperson Stevenson suggested adding pre-cast concrete as a material under C-6. He also suggested that the choices of desirable materials not necessarily be limited to two, and the rewording or removal of False Stone Veneer as an inappropriate material. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that “unpainted plywood” be modified to say “general plywood siding” under inappropriate materials. He commented that the use of clear glass on the first floor is recommended, and asked if it were encouraged by the guidelines. Mr. Crawford suggested they could address this in the introductory paragraph on windows. Commr. Rawson suggested adding language that says large expansive walls are undesirable, and that windows should be used for providing visual and human scale and articulation. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that on historically significant buildings, uniform awning colors are preferred. th Commr. Rawson suggested taking out the second sentence of the 4 bullet under D-5. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested some encouragement with using higher-grade doors under D-3. He suggested that display windows should retain a visual connection to the inside of the store. He recommended that the word “should” replace the word “may” on D-6, and that a section on courtyards be added to D-7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Josephine Malone, SLO, expressed concerns with advertising and signage. She asked what the aesthetics and ethical responsibilities of the downtown business were. Planner Ricci replied the ARC’s responsibility is for the aesthetics component. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 3 There were no further comments from the public. GOALS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DESIGN Vice-Chair Lopes noted 5.2-A resembled a preamble, and suggested changing the order of A & B, and that access be encouraged between projects in 5.2-C. He mentioned the speed of traffic along community streets and suggested new language to reduce the rate of speed in residential neighborhoods. He recommended that E-1 (b) be changed to require sidewalk parkways be a minimum of 6-feet. Mr. Crawford suggested that 5-feet is a more common standard. Vice-Chair Lopes noted there could be another approach on clustering of hillside density on 2-A, and that in 2-C, the second line should indicate larger lot sizes and setbacks. INFILL DEVELOPMENT Commr. Boudreau commented that 5.3-B should go under A-2. MULTI-FAMILY AND CLUSTERED HOUSING DESIGN Vice-Chair Lopes noted that 5.4 A-4 speaks about the locations of entrances and suggested that all units adjacent to the street should face the street. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that in 5.5 A-4, the driveway lengths should be 20-feet from the sidewalk to the garage. Commr. Rawson noted that in 5.5 A-4, the reference to the width of the garage as a percentage of the width of the living space might be too specific. There was nothing more added to the guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Josephine Malone, SLO, expressed an appreciation to Vice-Chair Lopes for going beyond the fundamentals and speaking to the quality of life. There were no further comments made from the public. 2. 369 Marsh Street. ARC 31-01; Review of a new 2,849 square foot office building; C-R zone; Jon Olsen, applicant. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 4 Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Chairperson Stevenson asked what is being recommended on the Interim Composite Elevation. Planner Ricci explained there were several previous versions of the building that came in before that had some desirable elements such as rafter tails, arched windows, and divided lights that seemed to be missing with the revised tower design. She noted that this composite elevation was added as an illustration, but was not meant as the ultimate solution. Jon Olsen, applicant, explained that they have attempted to address all 12 items that were requested by the ARC. They made modifications where they could, and put rafter tails under the eaves where it was feasible under the existing codes. Tom Kowalski, project architect, felt they have met the criteria that the ARC asked for. He explained they could not fit the rafter tails on the parapets because of code restrictions. He stated they met the established criteria on the window treatment. Mr. Olsen explained there is a concern with further articulating the wing-wall because it is not visible due to the proximity of the structure next door. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if they agreed with the conditions that staff is recommending. Mr. Kowalski replied yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau felt the design is too busy. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the top of the roofline has a little parapet line or if it is a cornice. He mentioned that the building has a 1970’s Mediterranean style. He questioned if it were going to be okay to have the narrow eave. Commr. Rawson commented that he liked the roof over the entry on the other version of the project. He felt the tower was too tall for the rest of the building. Planner Ricci noted in the earlier plans there was discussion on making the tower more prominent and the current staff report is suggesting that maybe it should be lowered. Commr. Howard asked how much taller the tower is than the rest of the building. Mr. Kowalski replied 18 inches. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 5 Chairperson Stevenson noted that he supports condition 2. Vice-Chair Lopes noted even if the tower were 18-inches lower, it would still be taller than the building. Planner Ricci explained that the conditions of approval do not require lowering the height of the tower. Chairperson Stevenson asked why the rafter tails couldn’t be stucco. Planner Ricci explained that they could be. Commr. Schultz moved to grant final approval of the project based on the findings and subject to conditions that are listed in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. Commr. Schultz added an amendment to the motion that the top band be replaced with tile. Commr. Boudreau agreed to the amendment. He suggested it be left up to the applicant on what they would like to do with the round window in the tower. Planner Ricci suggested that they stay with divided lights in the upper courses of the windows. The applicant and the architect both agreed on this suggestion. Commr. Boudreau suggested that they utilize a ridge skylight design. Vice-Chair Lopes asked the applicant about further embellishment of the west side of the building and brought up the idea of adding faux windows. Mr. Olsen explained that he understood the desire to have the building more articulated since it is visible driving up Marsh Street. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested they have faux windows or arched recesses. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Lopes, Howard, Rawson, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. 3. 511 Branch Street. ARC 194-01; Review of a new triplex on a site with an existing house; R-2 zone; Bob Mellema, applicant. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 6 Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project. Rob Wurster, representative, stated they are ready to accept all five conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Lopes stated that the street tree should be slow growing and suggested adding the Pistache Tree to code requirement 7. Commr. Boudreau asked how they turned a 1,100 square foot house into a one- bedroom unit. Mr. Wurster explained that almost 400 square feet of it is a living room. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if it was still a living room. Mr. Wurster replied yes. Vice-Chair Lopes noted that he liked staff’s option of keeping the two-bedroom unit on Branch Street and this project being changed to two one-bedroom units in back. Planner Ricci explained the parking would stay the same with this configuration. Mr. Wurster explained it would be better for them if they eliminated part of the living room, rather than to redesign the entire project. Bob Mellema, applicant, explained that the problem is the living room was added on before they acquired the property. Chairperson Stevenson expressed that he supports the unit configuration submitted. Commr. Boudreau asked if the details match the adjacent building. Mr. Wurster replied yes, but that the existing building has exposed rafter tails, and that this building would have a continuous fascia. Commr. Boudreau asked if the rafters could be exposed. Mr. Wurster replied no. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there were going to be two doors facing South Street. Planner Ricci replied yes. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 7 Vice-Chair Lopes asked if they were going to have front porches at these doors under the gables. Mr. Wurster explained their intention is to have a small gable, which is what they have over the side entrances presently. Commr. Boudreau questioned if it would be an addition to the gable that is presently there at the window. Mr. Wurster explained the window box would disappear and the entry door and the porch projection would replace it. Planner Ricci asked if the motion maker would like it clarified to have condition 1 describe that there would be the gable and porches that extend from the face of the building. Vice-Chair Lopes moved for staff’s recommendation to grant final approval based on the findings and conditions in the staff report and change condition 1 as follows: The new building shall be designed with the front doors to the studios facing South Street and to provide gables and porches. Amend the second sentence of code requirement #7 to specify Pistache trees. Seconded by Commr. Schultz. Commr. Howard did not support the motion because she believed that it was preferred to have one two-bedroom unit and two one-bedrooms units in the project. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Boudreau, Rawson, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: Commr. Schultz and Howard ABSENT: Commr. Novak ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-2. 4. LESSONS LEARNED: Chairperson Stevenson asked if there were any comments on recent projects that have been approved. Commr. Schultz raised the concern that several recent projects included dens which could ultimately be converted into bedrooms. He asked how they could address these types of requests. There was much discussion on conversion of living space to bedrooms. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they should make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to study this and consider a limitation on the sizes of various types of residential units. ARC Minutes March 4, 2002 Page 8 Commr. Boudreau suggested they notify the Planning Commission that they have been seeing a lot of projects that have been coming in with numerous improvements where one bedroom units could become two-bedroom units, and two-bedroom units could become three. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the Planning Commission study it and come up with a square footage-based limitation. The ARC requested a memorandum to go to the Planning Commission for their consideration on this topic. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the ARC, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for March 18, 2002. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce. Recording Secretary