Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Alan Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, and Vice-Chair Rob Schultz. Absent: Commrs. Mark Rawson and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTENCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PROJECTS: 1. 728 Higuera Street. ARC 36-02; Review of a new building façade and remodel of an existing building; C-C-H zone; Bill Hales, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project based on findings and subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Commr. Howard asked if the recommendation represents and reflects suggestions by the Cultural Heritage Committee. Planner Dunsmore replied yes. He stated the CHC specifically suggested the modified architectural treatment and presented a copy of the prior submittal from the CHC. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if there were any changes proposed to the back other than the tree removal and signage. Planner Dunsmore replied no, and explained the existing brick facade will remain in the back and a small wall sign has been added, but the patio would remain the same. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if they have a permit for the temporary canopy. Planner Dunsmore replied the canopy is not legal and has asked the applicant to remove it. Commr. Lopes asked about the sound insulation around the building. ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 2 Planner Dunsmore explained that noise was not analyzed as an issue at this particular site. Commr. Lopes asked if there were any apartments upstairs from the business. Planner Dunsmore replied no, only offices. Craig Smith, project architect, explained the history of this building and noted a great deal of this building is no longer in existence. He explained the front is plain because it was demolished in the early 70’s when it was remodeled as an ice cream parlor. He stated the whole front was replaced when Frog and Peach took it over due to a considerable amount of moisture and termite damage. He explained there is nothing being proposed in the rear with the exception of the replacement of a tree that has been removed. He expressed the importance of the CHC input. Vice-Chair Schultz noted that the light structure that went before the CHC had been taken out. Commr. Boudreau commented about the projection of the window and asked how this projection will work in conjunction with ADA requirements. Mr. Smith replied that he has already looked into it. Commr. Root asked if they had any plans for colors on the woodwork and what colors would be used in the rear. Mr. Smith explained his plan was to leave it the way it is. Commr. Lopes asked if there would be an objection to changing the colors in the front. Mr. Smith explained there may be an update to the ordinance regarding updating or modifying elements that face the front. Commr. Lopes suggested some metal halide light to brighten it up. He noted there is a wooden sign hanging on the awning and asked if it would be hanging on the pointed metal bracing. Mr. Smith replied yes, and explained that would be the actual curtain across the front. Commr. Lopes questioned why the projection sign is out beyond the awning. He suggested some different alternatives for placing the signs in a location where people could see the suspended sign below the awning or hanging in the middle. Mr. Smith responded that he does not need to change it, but he could add to it, and could also move the sign in some. Commr. Lopes agreed with bringing it in and up so it is closer to the wall. ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 3 Commr. Root suggested deepening the valance on the cloth awning and returning it to the wall and attaching the wooden sign over that. Commr. Lopes asked if the façade had the pop-outs. Mr. Smith replied yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval to the project based on staff’s findings and recommended conditions, modifying condition 6 to include: Any lights in the patio shall be specified to minimize glare to the rear of the project and into the creek. Modify Condition 7 to include: Return the sign valance to the wall, return the signage to pedestrian level, and pull back and raise the height of the sign above. Add Condition 8. Paint the exterior window molding of the woodwork door a green color. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, Root, Lopes, and Vice-Chair Schultz. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Rawson and Chairperson Stevenson. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. 2. 1464 and 1484 Auto Park Way. ARC 148-01 Review of a new auto dealership and site improvements; C-S-PD zone; Gordon Giacomazzi, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending approval to the building design, with the applicant to return to the ARC with revised exterior finishes, a sign program, and revised landscape plan, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements recommended by staff. Planner Dunsmore presented a color sample and expressed a concern about the silver color that is proposed. He gave a brief description of the south facing elevation. Commr. Lopes asked if this material was proposed at the previous ARC meeting. Planner Dunsmore replied no, and explained that a very light gray stucco exterior was proposed at that time. Commr. Lopes asked if they are proposing an aqua tint or a clear glass. ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 4 Commr. Boudreau asked what the objections are with the material, and if the concerns would remain if the building was white. Planner Dunsmore replied white would be too bright. He explained the actual material does not have significant reflective quality. Commr. Lopes asked if the applicant owns the car lot property to the north. Gordon Giacomazzi, applicant, replied yes. Commr. Lopes asked what color is proposed for the concrete block. Planner Dunsmore replied it is going to be painted a gray color. Commr. Howard asked about the parking. Planner Dunsmore explained the site is slightly over-parked. He stated they are required to have four motorcycle parking spaces and several bicycle parking spaces, both short-term and long-term, and felt the applicant is able to accommodate all three Commr. Lopes asked if a landscape planter had been suggested. Planner Dunsmore replied yes, it was suggested in the staff report. Commr. Root asked if there is fencing around other parts of the site. Planner Dunsmore explained the fencing would end at the wrought iron fencing that crosses the lot near the service bay area. Commr. Root asked if the fencing comes all the way to the street on the north side. Planner Dunsmore replied no. Commr. Root commented that he likes the idea of not painting the block and felt the pathways through the planters are important. Commr. Lopes questioned the scenic corridors and asked if LOVR is considered a scenic corridor. Planner Dunsmore replied that it is a scenic corridor. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if the threshold for retail uses subject to design guidelines would be 35,000 square feet. Planer Dunsmore responded that it is 40,000 square feet and larger. ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 5 Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, stated she would like to ask for final approval. She commented on the staff-recommended conditions, noting they are in agreement with most of them. George Avanessian, Project Architect, presented a brief summary of the project proposals. He explained about the light lenses that they are proposing along the street, which are designed so all the lights are not directed into the street. He explained that Alucobond material is a clear aluminum material, and the masonry wall color is referred to as silver dollar, which is a light gray. Commr. Lopes asked if the brick itself is light gray or the paint color. Mr. Avanessian replied the paint color. Commr. Lopes asked what color the brick is. Mr. Avanessian replied a standard gray. He noted that the glass is clear, and suggested that five feet of landscaping would probably be enough. Ms. Florence noted that five-feet would be sufficient for them to put some border for elements if the masonry wall needs to be broken up. Commr. Howard asked for the applicant’s reaction is to staff’s suggestion that this particular facade may need a little more attention. Mr. Avanessian explained if they thought it was a problem, they would have done more to it. Commr. Howard asked if the customer parking is necessary to be in the front of the building. Mr. Avanessian explained they are designating it this way in order to meet zoning ordinance requirements. Commr. Boudreau asked if the two square windows on the front and the two square windows on the side are recessed. Mr. Avanessian replied they are flush. Commr. Boudreau asked if they are flush with the aluminum. Mr. Avanessian replied yes. He explained the storefront is recessed. Commr. Root asked what the color is of the light that will be produced. Mr. Avanessian replied a white light. Commr. Root asked if the light is going to be cut back after a certain time of night. ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Avanessian explained they will be cut back when they are closed and after hours. Gordon Giacomazzi, applicant, explained they only keep a few lights on after hours. Planner Dunsmore presented an example of the lenses and explained why staff suggested the flat lens. There was much discussion about the light lenses and the lighting. Mr. Avanessian noted if the Commission would like them to go to a flat lens to get an approval, they would agree to change. Commr. Root asked if other parts of the property are required to have the wall separation. Mr. Avanessian explained he would discuss it with the Public Works. Commr. Root noted that the pervious pavers are a good idea. Ms. Florence explained that the Public Works Department requires that historical flow is maintained. Commr. Boudreau asked if the fence is strictly for security. Mr. Avanessian replied yes. Commr. Boudreau commented that it is a very nice fence. Ms. Florence mentioned that they would be covering it with vines. Commr. Boudreau commented that he liked the architecture of the building. Commr. Howard asked where the new car supply will be located. Mr. Giacomazzi replied that it is kept on the lot. Commr. Howard questioned how many cars could be put in this display area. Mr. Avanessian explained it depends on how they elect to do it. Commr. Howard questioned how many cars would be between the street and the building. Commr. Lopes asked if the parking spaces that are in front of the building are sacrificial or optional parking spaces. Planner Dunsmore explained there is a requirement for parking on the site, which they are exceeding by approximately 12-14 spaces. He noted there are some necessary ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 7 customer parking spaces that need to be maintained on either the north side or south side. Mr. Avanessian explained it is in the best interest for the dealer to have customer parking. Commr. Boudreau commented about the landscaping and suggested some changes to be may soften the front. Ms. Florence noted that the sign ordinance is extremely limiting, but commented that the signs would be quite small. She presented picture examples of the proposed signage and its height. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Schultz mentioned if they were going for final approval, Condition 10 would have to be modified so the landscape plan would be satisfactory to the Community Development Director, and condition 13 would have to be modified so the project does not come back to the ARC. Commr. Lopes stated the basic design of the building is okay, but there are some mild exceptions on the form of the building on one side. He agreed with staff’s approach to have this continued for reducing the amount of Alucobond that is on the full front façade on the side, and to deal with the painted block color. He commented on the landscaping, lighting, and monument sign package. There was discussion on the monument signs. Commr. Lopes suggested there be a condition for the monument signs. There was discussion about the Alucobond and four of the Commissioners supported it. Commr. Lopes suggested there be a landscape plan that is reviewed by staff. th Commr. Boudreau suggested adding a 5 finding that notes the project is more than 120-feet back from the curb line. Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval of the project based on the findings and subject to conditions prepared by staff with the following modifications: Add finding 5. The project design is consistent with the sensitive view corridor along Los Osos Valley Road since the project will maintain a 130 foot setback from Los Osos Valley Road and the project landscape is designed with sensitivity to the view corridor.. Modify Condition 4. All outdoor lighting shall be consistent or superior to LSI Challenger horizontal burn, full cut off fixture. Light standards shall be limited to a maximum height of 25 feet, including the light standard and base and designed with full cut off, “hooded” ARC Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 8 lighting fixtures to eliminate off site spillage and glare. Lighting shall utilize flat lenses; protruding or contoured lenses shall not be allowed. Add condition 13. will be that the color rendering will represent the applicant’s signage program with the addition of the BMW emblem to last of the coast BMW lettering and the applicant will do a 24-square foot version of the sign shown on 225 with a 6-foot height limitation and one of the Nissan signs with the same requirements and they will be with a 10-foot minimum setback. Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Commr. Boudreau, Root, Howard, Lopes, and Vice-Chair Schultz. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Rawson and Chairperson Stevenson. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. The minutes of April 15, 2002 were approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 3, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary