Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Jim Lopes, Zeljka Howard, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commrs. Mark Rawson and Alan Root. Staff: Associate Planners Phil Dunsmore and Michael Codron, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. PROJECTS: 1. 145 South Street. ARC 23-02; Review of a new noise wall and landscaping as part of South Street widening; R-4 zone; Caltrans, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, explaining this is a courtesy review as part of the South Street widening. He recommended support for the proposed noise wall and recommended a particular design option, based on findings and subject to conditions, which he outlined. Commr. Lopes asked if any people were being displaced from their units. Planner Dunsmore explained that the building to be demolished is currently vacant. Chairperson Stevenson expressed the City’s appreciation for the opportunity to discuss this sensitive design with Caltrans. Mark Creswell, Project Engineer, Caltrans, explained that this project would improve the operations through South Street. He noted they are attempting to eliminate a jog in the street, which encroaches into an existing mobile home park. He explained that a five- foot wide bike lane would be added, along with curb and gutter and a sidewalk for pedestrian access through the project, to improve the drainage throughout this area. He felt a six-foot high sound wall would be the best alternative to achieve the desired noise reduction. Katherine Brown, Landscape Architect, presented visual simulations of the preferred option, and a drawing of the different options for the project. She stated the landscape concept provides existing plant material that exists on the site such as Birds of Paradise, California Pepper, and Jacaranda street trees. She noted that the planting proposal along the wall should be fairly open and low to provide a safe walking ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 2 environment along the sidewalk. She stated three light standards are proposed along the street, and the proposed wall is a simplified version of a block wall with vines. Commr. Howard asked if it would be option 4? Ms. Brown replied it could be option 4. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the shiplap wall face material was proposed to be a cement board. Mr. Creswell explained it was originally proposed by City Planning to use real materials, so in this case, it would be wood siding lagged onto the face of the wall. Chairperson Stevenson felt that would be a mistake and suggested Hardy Board, which is very durable. Mr. Creswell replied they investigate this suggestion. Chairperson Stevenson questioned the pedestrian crossing at Beebee and Parker Streets, which he felt would be difficult to cross. Mr. Creswell stated this area is known to be a difficult pedestrian crossing area, and explained they are trying to orientate pedestrians towards the corner of South and Higuera Streets as a means of crossing the street. Chairperson Stevenson asked if Beebee Street is going to have pedestrian crossing. Mr. Creswell replied no. Chairperson Stevenson commented he would like traffic encouraged to slow down through this area. Mr. Creswell explained that Caltrans policy tends to be to not delineate the actual crossing at street corners where there could be possible conflicts. Commr. Lopes asked if the traffic counts were high enough to warrant four lanes. Mr. Creswell replied he did not know. Commr. Lopes noted that a memo suggested that a 7-foot wall would be preferable for noise attenuation rather than a 6-foot wall. Mr. Creswell explained that after discussing this with Planning and Engineering, they came to an agreement that a 6-foot tall wall would be preferred. Commr. Lopes felt that the City’s noise threshold is lower than that of Caltrans. Mr. Creswell explained the noise projections are currently being debated. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 3 Commr. Lopes questioned if any other street trees were considered. Ms. Brown replied they had discussed the suggested Ficus and would be willing to work with the ARC with some other suggestions. Commr. Boudreau commented there was a lack of ability to get onto the site. Mr. Creswell explained some of the issues they were looking into with the noise study, noting they were only allowed to have one opening through that section of the wall. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes commented that the taller wall is something they could recommend. He felt the sidewalk behind the tree grate is narrow and suggested a meander in the sidewalk where the tree wells are located. He suggested they recommend adding other street trees and large canopy street trees the size of the Jacaranda. Vice-Chair Schultz questioned the height of the existing wall on the west and east side of the mobile home park. He asked what the fence would be made of. Mr. Creswell replied a wooden fence and believed the height is approximately 6-feet. Chairperson Stevenson asked the Commission for their preference on materials. The Commission expressed they were happy with what was proposed. Commr. Boudreau asked who would maintain the trees and landscaping. Mr. Creswell explained that Caltrans has a maintenance agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to maintain the corridor of South Street, and this area would be incorporated into it. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a meander area could be incorporated to widen the sidewalk behind the tree well. Mr. Creswell replied yes, they could look into this. Chairperson Stevenson commented on the idea of a gate at the bus terminal. Mr. Creswell replied he would look into this . Chairperson Stevenson suggested they look into some mixtures of trees. There was much discussion on the different trees that would be appropriate for this site. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 4 Commr. Lopes moved to support the project as proposed in the staff report based on the findings and subject to the conditions as modified: Condition 1 to read: Wall option 4 that utilizes beige tone split face masonry with brick faced columns should be the noise wall design. The wall should utilize a darker shade of split face masonry as a base treatment. The wall should have a maximum height of 6 feet on the South Street side. Condition 3 to read: Vision setbacks shall be taken into account with the wall design on each side of the South Street driveway. Condition 5 to read: A solid gate should be incorporated into the wall at the back of the bus stop to allow pedestrian access into the site. Seconded By Commr. Howard. Chairperson Stevenson asked what the masonry wall would be made of. Ms. Brown responded it would be split face masonry. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the color of the brick pilasters is to be antique or straight brick. Ms. Brown explained there would be different options, noting he submitted the different options to the Commission. He stated they are checking with structures to verify if they could use the brick veneer. He explained the additional weight of bricks being grouted onto the face of the columns would require an additional structural review. Commr. Lopes recommended that the columns be split faced with the same color, and the wall be beige in color. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the brick be incorporated into this. Commr. Boudreau suggested a lighter material. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Howard, Boudreau, Schultz, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: None. ABSENT: Commrs. Root and Commr. Rawson. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. 2. 1529 Osos Street. ARC 12-02; Review of a new 2-unit apartment and attached studio on a site with an existing house; R-2 H zone; Bob Budke, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project based on findings and subject to staff recommended conditions and code requirements. Commr. Boudreau asked if the historical group suggested specific details on window trim and other things that need construction. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 5 Planner Dunsmore explained window details were not discussed; the only recommendation that came from the CHC was to match a painted trim color on the large scale shingles of the new development to a trim color that would be proposed on the new development. Chairperson Stevenson felt the project is far enough back on the site and out of sight from the street that the he is satisfied with the proposed treatment. He questioned the landscaping that would be retained versus the ones removed from the site. Planner Dunsmore explained one Date Palm is being removed from the site to provide parking. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the Camphor tree would remain. Planner Dunsmore replied yes, but it will need heavy pruning. Commr. Lopes noted the parking that is located on the adjacent parcel is contained parking for the site; there is no access from this parking into the rear of the building next door. Planner Dunsmore explained there is a rear access to the apartment next door, which shares the same driveway. Commr. Lopes asked if all the turning movements were on this property. Planner Dunsmore replied yes. Commr. Lopes felt there is a problem with the parking. Planner Dunsmore explained the Parking and Driveway Standards do not require that parking lots with six or fewer spaces have a turn-around with two maneuvers or less. Chairperson Stevenson asked if it is necessary for the height of the keystone wall to be that high. Planner Dunsmore replied that it is additional, but not necessary. Chairperson Stevenson noted that space one could have a little more distance to back in, which would make it easier to maneuver out. Planner Dunsmore explained the problem with space one is the turn-around is too close to the garage. Bob Budke, applicant, explained he intends to have a fence to close off what would be the service yard with a gate. Commr. Lopes felt it looks like a patio. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Budke explained they are showing the lot because it was a requirement that they not put a hard surface over the tree. Commr. Lopes commented that the gable facing on the front could be a little steeper. Mr. Budke explained they intend to use pre-manufactured trusses and the lower the truss, the easier it is to fabricate and deliver it to the site and install it. Chairperson Stevenson asked if it is shallow on both sides of the roof. Mr. Budke replied yes. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a different pitch would be used on the one directed. Mr. Budke replied no. Commr. Lopes asked if the Palm tree on the site could be removed. Mr. Budke explained they would love to eliminate it, but palm tree brokers are not enthused about removing it, and the cost is extremely high. He stated they are removing the short palm tree. Commr. Lopes asked if the spaces in the back of the parking lot accesses this building. Mr. Budke replied yes. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the retaining wall would be raised 1.5-feet with fill, which would be retaining the back of the site. Mr. Budke explained only where they would be paving. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Chairperson Stevenson commented that this is going to be a tremendous improvement to the site and suggested there be an attempt made to move the 16-inch Keystone wall near the oak tree back a little further. Planner Dunsmore asked if the intention would be to improve circulation on the site. Chairperson Stevenson replied yes. He felt space one needs some help, which would allow it to work better. Commr. Boudreau commented that the site is covered with hard materials between both of the buildings, and felt it could work as it is. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 7 There was much discussion about the maneuverability of parking spaces on the site. Commr. Lopes moved for final approval based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements noted in the staff report, with an added Condition 9. Expand the spaces adjacent to parking space 4 to provide a different design more in line with the turning movements of parking space 1 and to provide turf block or pavers which spaces a backup for space 1, and condition 10 would be to pave the parking area to extend a paving into the parking area of the adjacent property that is shown on the site plan and the removal of the Palm Tree at the rear of the parking area provide this for both sites. and add to the design condition 7, add a sentence to add covered braces to the corners of the carport, similar to the existing building, and add a condition 11 to have the window detail match the dimensions and style of the front building, and delete condition 8. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. Chairperson Stevenson commented he was uncomfortable attaching the condition of paving on the adjacent property. There was discussion about the accessibility for the driveway to the adjacent property. The Commission had discussion of the removal of condition 10, which they were in favor of removing. Mr. Budke questioned if this also included the removal of the Palm tree. The Commission replied yes. Commr. Boudreau suggested there be discussion in the motion that there is concern about drainage on the site, which should be designed properly. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the landscape proposal had been reviewed. Commr. Lopes agreed with the tree removal that was shown. Planner Dunsmore suggested they add a condition that requires a landscape plan that does identify a species of quantity in size of the plants growth. Mr. Budke commented that condition 4 mentions this. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if there were any intentions to upgrade the front building. Mr. Budke replied no. Commr. Lopes added to the motion a condition 12 that the front house be repainted the same complimentary colors as the rear. Vice-Chair Schultz suggested amendment to the motion that the landscape plans should include the front landscape as well. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 8 All Commissioners agreed on the amendment. AYES: Commr. Lopes, Boudreau, Schultz, Howard, and Stevenson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Root. ABSENT: None. The motion carried 5-0. 3. 190 Stenner Street. ARC 165-01; Review of a new multi-story duplex on a site with an existing house; Matthew Farmer, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant schematic approval to the project, including a driveway width exception, with the applicant to return to ARC with a final project design incorporating staff and ARC recommendations. Chairperson Stevenson questioned why they were not asking for final approval on the project Planner Dunsmore explained there were some design issues that needed to be resolved. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the carport height is 7-feet, and questioned why the dimensions on the site plan shows a plate level height of 9-feet, as well as the second level of 9-feet. Planner Dunsmore explained the roof height was 7-foot, but the actual plate height may be approximately 9-feet, which he stated they would clarify. Commr. Lopes asked if the distance for a 24-foot backup area is needed on the site. Planner Dunsmore replied it could be accomplished in 20-foot. Vice-Chair Schultz asked what the width of the deck is. Jennifer Martin, Design Architect, replied it is 5.5 feet wide. Matthew Farmer, 190 Stenner Street, stated they brought a design plan that incorporates all of the previous design elements and suggestions that have been a problem up to this point in order to accommodate the width exception of the 9-foot driveway. He explained they have facilitated the turn-around and created an open space with this new linear design fashion, and have also rectified the backup maneuverability of a couple of the parking spaces. He noted they have incorporated a landscape plan for the rear of the north side of the building, and a landscape plan was ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 9 incorporated to upgrade the front of the existing residence. They also agreed to upgrade the paint scheme on the front existing building to match the new duplex. Vice-Chair Schultz asked the applicant if he liked the project better. Mr. Farmer replied that he did, and felt that all the recommendations and design options will be beneficial. He mentioned there was a grade change on the north side of the property. Lenny Grant, Project Architect, expressed his appreciation to the applicant for his patience on this challenging project. He felt they have designed to the R-4 standard, which was a difficult task with the driveway width. He explained they decided against the third story because of cost, but were given some direction to explore a couple of different options, which they appreciated. He stated they would like to see condition 1 revised for staff to review the consistency with final drawings. Commr. Howard asked how they felt about the other conditions. Mr. Grant replied that except for Condition 1, they had no problems with any of the other conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson commented that he liked the project, but felt it is a little tall. Mr. Grant responded that they could bring it down. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a 9-foot plate on the second floor is something that is needed. Mr. Farmer replied that as long as it is not a structural issue that would be fine. Commr. Boudreau commented that the project has improved, and felt it is a much stronger design with a lot more character. Chairperson Stevenson commented that the access issue is solved with the 8-foot wide driveway since the building has been re-oriented. Commr. Lopes questioned the turning movements. He also questioned what the colors and materials are going to be on the front building and asked what the landscaping plan looks like. Mr. Farmer explained this was all submitted in the first submittal. Commr. Lopes asked if anything is proposed with the front house. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Farmer explained he had verbally agreed to match the color scheme with the new duplex. Commr. Lopes suggested some molding that would be consistent to the existing building. Mr. Farmer replied he would try to match it to the existing trim that is currently there. Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval, subject to the conditions in the staff report, with the addition of condition 7. Match the color scheme with the front and rear buildings; and add Condition 8. Match the corner and window trim widths around the existing building, with the two columns supporting the major body of the building shall be 8-inches or greater, and ensure that the deck is a minimum of 5-feet 6-inches clear; and explore reducing the garage plate height one foot. Seconded by Commr. Schultz. Commr. Lopes suggested moving the building 18-inches to the south so the private yard on the north side would have more space. Mr. Grant replied he would be happy to move the building, and asked if there was a problem with moving the building to the south? Mr. Farmer replied no, but noted it may eliminate the little shaded open area. He explained there is a 5-foot setback between both buildings. Commr. Boudreau proposed leaving the building where it is and increasing the planter to 3-1/2 feet instead of 2-feet. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Schultz, Lopes, Howard, and Stevenson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commrs. Root and Rawson. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. 4. 728 Marsh Street. ARC MI 38-02; Review of a new awning; C-C zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending denial of the request with direction to the applicant to install the previously approved awning or one with more muted colors, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commr. Howard expressed her displeasure for the disrespect that was shown towards the City and its staff for the time that was spent, and approval given for a specific design, which was disregarded and ignored. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 11 John Walker, applicant’s representative, explained that he obtained a permit for the silver awning, which blended in with the building and had no contrast with the building, but the client did not like it. He stated the client wanted to change it to an orange color, so he called the City Planning Department, leaving a message asking if he could change the color from the logo, and requesting a return call. Mr. Walker said he never received a response, so he went ahead and changed the colors. Chairperson Stevenson commented that the color is the issue and felt a more subdued darker tone would work. Commr. Lopes felt the whole design is an issue. Commr. Howard felt the original color blended well with building. Chairperson Stevenson stated that there is no support from this Commission for the color change. Commr. Boudreau commented that he liked the extreme quality of it in contrast to the ultra simple building. Mr. Walker presented some material colors that are on existing buildings in the downtown on similar buildings. Pamela Riggione, store manager, commented that when the awning was first installed, it looked very bright, which caught her eye. She noted that after reviewing this with her Director of Sales, they considered going back to the black awning but keeping the orange scheme, while toning it down some. She explained because there is no light on sign, they would like something that draws attention to it while cars are driving by. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the awning were black, would the silver logo be placed on it. Ms. Riggione explained the previous black awning had a red and white color scheme, but they would like to use the orange color. Commr. Howard asked what was the original color requested when they first requested a permit. Mr. Walker explained it was a silver fabric with an orange logo. Commr. Howard asked what assurance does the Commission have that any approval they receive will be honored. Mr. Walker explained he meant no disrespect towards the City, but the customer did not like the colors that were approved. He called the City to find out if they could get an approval for changing it without reapplying for a permit. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 12 Ms. Riggione explained they realize they made a mistake, which they take full responsibility for, but they are trying to remedy the mistake so it never happens again and would like to have a product that both the applicant and the City can agree on. Commr. Lopes asked if the design on the awning the same. Planner Codron replied yes. Commr. Lopes noted that this awning is vastly different than what the report recommends. Ms. Riggione explained that the structure is the same, but with a different color scheme. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes moved to support the staff recommendation to deny the request to allow the installed awning and directed the applicant to reapply for an awning that is consistent with the Charles Hall Page Report for the downtown and with the ARC Draft Guidelines regarding awnings. Seconded by Commr. Howard. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they offer direction in terms of design structure and color. Planner Codron suggested a burnt orange. Commr. Lopes suggested that the text be on the fascia, and that there be a condition that the review be guided by the Charles Hall Page Report for Classic Main Street Storefronts. Planner Codron explained staff’s recommendation is to deny the request with direction to the applicant to go through the appropriate building permit process. The motion was changed. Commr. Lopes amended to the motion that this item be continued to a date uncertain for it to return to the Commission with a direction that they already gave. AYES: Commr. Lopes, Howard, Schultz, and Chairperson Stevenson. NOES: Commr. Boudreau. ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Root. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 4-1. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 13 5. 3615 Broad Street. ARC 185-99; Review of the Damon Garcia sports fields plan; C/OS-25 zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending approval of the design for the Damon-Garcia Sport Fields complex, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Professor Gary Clay, Parks and Recreation Commission, gave a summary of the extensive review they had been through, as well as several different scenarios they discussed, along with several different alignments of the fields. He summarized all the issues associated with parking, the infrastructure, and servicing the peripheral road systems. He explained that as a Commission, they are pleased with where they are right now. Paul LeSage, Director of Parks and Recreation, explained that they want to irrigate the playing fields. The rest would remain natural, which will be enhanced by the mitigation of Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek. He noted that not all of the fields will be lighted, to alleviate some problems that other fields have with lighting. He commented that this is a community project. Commr. Lopes asked why night games are played so late. Mr. LeSage explained that 10:00 p.m. is typical of what they have on their other fields. Professor Clay explained they wanted to develop a timetable so a wide range of citizens could participate in this. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he would like to discuss design because the Planning Commission approved the Land Use and the Environmental Documents relative to all the environmental impacts, which have been mitigated. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if playground facilities were ever a topic of discussion at the community and Parks and Recreation meetings? Mr. LeSage replied yes, and explained this was a conscious decision to concentrate on turf sports fields. If there were money and space permitting, they would look into some kind of children’s playground, but at this point it doesn’t appear that it is feasible. Planner Codron noted there would be a park nearby when the Margarita area develops. Vice-Chair Schultz felt the children will be in the creeks and trees since there is no playground, and felt the playground is going to be sorely missed. David Foote, FIRMA, explained how they arrived at this configuration. Although it was the best site, it still has a number of constraints, and explained how they would solve them. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 14 Lauren Luker, APS Architects, presented a brief summary on the buildings that are going to be constructed, noting the fields are the main purpose of this development. She explained the proposed structures will be visible, but are very secondary to the main use and would be just a backdrop to the fields. She explained the colors are very neutral, which the City would have to maintain and keep them painted. Chairperson Stevenson noted the split face approach is difficult to clean if someone were to tag it. Ms. Luker explained there has been research done on this and they are researching products, which are non-sacrificial coatings. She explained that split face is harder to write on than smooth block, which is easier to write on and is tagged more often. Commr. Lopes asked if the roof would have the gray and green patina with the copper going through it. Ms. Luker explained the weathered copper is a darker brown. Chairperson Stevenson questioned what the bridge detail would be like. Mr. LeSage responded to a question about the snack bar. He explained that the snack bar is a community service project. Mr. Foote presented a map of the bridges and explained how they would be designed. He explained they would have wooden decks. Chairperson Stevenson asked about the future bike exchange and if they had a design in mind. Mr. Foote described it for the Commission and explained the opening would be 8 or 10- feet wide and then would slope back, which would not be like a box culvert. Chairperson Stevenson felt the ARC should be looking at these little details and commented he really liked this feature. Mr. Foote explained where the trash enclosure would be and described in detail how it would look. Chairperson Stevenson commented that there was no foot lighting along the path going north along Acacia Creek. Mr. Foote explained that the park is going to close at 10 p.m. and until that time the sports fields lights would be on, which would illuminate this area. Vice-Chair Schultz questioned if a permit will be required for the use of this park. Mr. LeSage replied yes, noting it is going to be scheduled solid. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 15 Commr. Lopes questioned the plaza and the concession stand and asked where they would be located. Mr. Foote referred to the map and explained where these structures and the plaza would be located. Commr. Boudreau questioned if all three bridges were capable of holding a fire truck? Mr. Foote replied yes. Commr. Boudreau asked if the road around the park is designed for fire trucks, and if so, why? Mr. Foote explained that fire trucks are the first response for any emergency and they have been instructed to allow for fire truck access. Commr. Lopes asked if Prado Road is part of the property. Mr. LeSage replied yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Scott Lathrop, 1619 La Vineda, supported the project. He expressed concern about being on the south side and the drainage issue and questioned where that water would go. Chairperson Stevenson referred to the map and asked Mr. Lathrop if the culvert on the map is undersized. Mr. Lathrop replied yes, it acts like a dam after a 25-year storm. Jeff Wagner, 416 Patricia Drive, expressed his support and asked that the project be handled in a very expeditious fashion because these fields are greatly needed. Rich Creek, 206 Marlene Drive, expressed the huge demand for fields. He felt that even with the addition of these fields, the demand will not be met. He stated there was great support for these fields at the Planning Commission meeting. Fred Burnockelm, SLO, explained that the area started out as a multi-use facility and evolved into a dedicated facility for turf sports. He commented on the time frame and explained this is not just a youth sports field, it is a turf sports field, which adults would also use. There were no further comments made by the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 16 Chairperson Stevenson noted this project will require curb, gutter and sidewalk on Broad Street and this Commission is concerned about providing an adequate pedestrian buffer for a parkway. He asked what the detail for this would be. Mr. Foote explained the Public Works Department has created the detail with some options. H noted there is a future curb line and a sidewalk that is separated with the Parkway. He explained that it would be in the Margarita Area Plan. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if they had an estimate on when this would happen? Mr. Foote replied he has not been told when it would happen. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern with the wire fence and suggested there be more landscaping to achieve the height, which would also be nice to look at. He suggested some soft annulation contour grading along the bank on Hwy. 227 to help break the long linear line along the site. He expressed concern on the vehicular lights and the interference with field activity because of the grade change. Mr. Foote explained that vehicular lights should not be a problem with all the landscaping. Commr. Howard felt this is a wonderful project which shows care, thought, and listening, and is in full support of it. Commr. Schultz expressed a concern that there is only one entrance to the parking lot with the number of cars that would be going in and out. Commr. Lopes asked what the light poles would look like. Mr. Foote replied they would look like any other field pole lights. Commr. Lopes questioned if there is a proposal for a light pole. Mr. Foote explained the light poles would be 11 to 15 lamps, pointed in different angles. Chairperson Stevenson asked for an explanation on the downhill drainage and how it would be mitigated, and the possible resizing and replacement of the culvert under the ranch road. Mr. Foote explained when they irrigate during a minor storm, those pipes are going to exit into the creeks so the normal storm water coming out of the surfaces would go into the creek channel. He explained in a 25-year storm, the culvert acts as a restricting point . They did a flood plain study and it was determined from the Public Works Department to exit the water the same depth, width, and velocity that it is right now. Commr. Lopes moved to grant final approval to the design for the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report, and to suggest a condition (3) to modify a grading plan to ungulate the bank ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 17 adjacent to Broad Street with contour grading and a cluster of planting periodically along the slope; add a condition (4) that the sidewalk of Broad Street shall be separated from the future curb by the parkway with sufficient width to accommodate large canopy street trees; add a condition (5) that several benches with angled backs shall be provided with additional project development at the restroom plaza and facing the fields; and a condition (6) that property line fence shall be a wire mesh with a wood post and a wood cap. Seconded by Commr. Schultz. Commr. Lopes mentioned the possibility of a playground being included. Mr. LeSage explained if there were an area that is flat, they would need it for the fields. Commr. Schultz expressed a concern about the parking lot planters and the different standards that they hold other developers up to and suggested adding a row of trees along Industrial Way. Chairperson Stevenson recommended that a row of trees be located as close to the road as possible to serve as a canopy. Commr. Boudreau suggested the reduction of the quantity of all weather surfaces by as much as possible. AYES: Commr. Lopes, Schultz, Howard, Lopes, and Chairperson Stevenson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Root and Rawson. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. Commr. Lopes moved to recommend to the City Council that they consider a reduction in the reinforced pathway to a reasonably sized loop. Seconded by Commr. Schultz. AYES: Commr. Lopes, Schultz, Howard, Boudreau, and Chairperson Stevenson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Rawson and Root. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. Commr. Lopes moved to recommend that a play area be developed with the pathway savings that would be equivalent to the Meadow Park play area. Seconded by Commr. Schultz AYES: Commrs. Lopes and Schultz. NOES: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, and Chairperson Stevenson. ABSENT: Commr. Root and Rawson. ABSTAIN: None. ARC Minutes May 6, 2002 Page 18 The motion failed 3-2. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of February 4, February 19, March 4, and March 18, 2002 were accepted as corrected. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 6. Staff A. Agenda Forecast May 20: Giocommazi, Nissan & BMW; Hales with a remodel of the Frog and Peach Pub. June 3: Light agenda. June 17: Sprint PCS application for South Tower; Godfrey Building on Osos Street. Chairperson Stevenson mentioned that Lee Price gave an encouragement to attend the training. He stated that the City Council is reviewing the public art that the ARC approved. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for May 20, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary