Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allan Root, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commissioners Zeljka Howard and Mark Rawson. Staff: Associate Planners Pam Ricci and Michael Codron, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. Chairperson Stevenson announced Commissioner Rawson’s resignation from the ARC. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was amended, noting Items 1 & 6 are being continued, and Item 5 was placed after Item 2. PULIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PROJECTS: 1. Citywide. ARC 42-02; Review of the comprehensive update of the City’s design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant Pam Ricci (5 minutes). (To be continued to August 19, 2002) This item was continued to August 19, 2002. 2. 221 Madonna Road. ARC 91-02; Review of a remodel to Mervyn’s, Sears, and the former Rite Aid (Petco) building; C-R zone; R.R.M. Design Group, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. She explained that Condition 2 applies to the remodel of Mervyn’s and has three parts. Part a. of Condition 2 calls for changes to make the entry more prominent, Part b. suggests the addition of decorative medallions or tile work as accents, and Part c. ensures the trellises are constructed so vines can trail up the columns. She indicated that staff was generally pleased with the remodel of Petco, but through Condition 3 was recommending a wainscoting at the entry for storefront areas where pre-cast concrete was not shown. She noted that Condition 4 had a small error in it and was intended to refer to plans for the Sears facade. She mentioned that the Commission might want to see additional planting in the parking lot. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 2 Vice-Chair Schultz asked if the three planters noted in previous recommended conditions are still included. Planner Ricci replied yes. Commr. Lopes asked for clarification on the Mervyns parking area and what the City requirement is for landscaping in that area. Planner Ricci explained typically that it is one landscaped island after every sixth parking space. Commr. Lopes asked why this application is different. Planner Ricci explained that it was because this part of the parking lot was not being modified with the comprehensive redevelopment plans for the shopping center. She noted that with the Ralphs store, the Commission did not expect full compliance to City standards since the parking fields were not impacted by the building construction, but did require some additional planting at the ends of the fields and some tree wells in the center. Commr. Lopes asked if the rear of this facade would be visible from Highway 101. Planner Ricci explained that it varies, but believed that it would be visible from certain vantage points. Chairperson Stevenson asked what is meant by a raised soffit in Condition 2. Planner Ricci explained that she was looking at suggestions to make the entry stand out more than it does and felt that it was possible to raise the central beam above the entry a little higher. Chairperson Stevenson asked what staff’s reactions are to the color schemes, particularly Mervyns. Planner Ricci explained that she hoped the Mervyn’s colors weren’t too bright, liked the Petco colors, and felt the Sears colors were a little drab. Vic Montgomery, 3765 South Higuera Street, presented some background on the project. He explained that is not actually the tenants, but the operator of the shopping center who is seeking the remodels. He commented on how difficult it is to remove the rock on the backs of the buildings; therefore, their proposal is to leave the rock in place and paint it. Stephen Rigor, project designer, agreed with all the conditions except No. 6 which calls for adding landscaping to the parking lot. Mr. Montgomery commented that they are willing to go back to the Mervyn’s architect and suggest that they do the landscaping. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 3 In response to a question from Commr. Schultz, Mr. Rigor noted the Sears building is very large, and he presented a picture of where they would like to put the proposed trellis. Vice-Chair Schultz noted the landscape plans show three trees to the left of the entrance. Mr. Rigor responded that there are actually five. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if any trees are being removed. Mr. Rigor replied no, but they would be trimmed back. Commr. Root asked for an explanation on the trellis recommended in Condition 4 for the Sears building. Planner Ricci explained it was intended to be small landscaped trellises near walls to add interest to the long façade, but would not be the same large, freestanding structure with columns that are on the Ralphs building. Commr. Boudreau asked if the Sears parapet above the entry is visible from the freeway. He noted that if the cornice were turned in some, it would have a neat and clean finish to it. Mr. Rigor responded that he thought that the cornice could be finished off as suggested. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they had considered a gable roof or pitched roof to break up the horizontal elements on the Sears building. Mr. Rigor replied no. He explained that cost is a large factor. Commr. Lopes asked what the material and color is on the rear elevation. Mr. Rigor replied beige. Commr. Lopes asked if they had considered a cornice on the rear side as well as the front, of the parapet. Mr. Rigor replied yes, and explained where it would wrap around and stop. Chairperson Stevenson asked what the height is of the Best Buy Store. Mr. Rigor responded between 40 and 42 feet. Chairperson Stevenson noted that Mervyns is close to 34 feet. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 4 Commr. Lopes asked if the shopping center owner owns the parking lot in front of Mervyns and Sears. Mr. Montgomery replied yes, the shopping center owner owns them. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson commented that there are nice elements to the proposed remodels, but that he felt that there were also missed opportunities with the proposal. He mentioned this is the final opportunity to resolve the many problems associated with this project, such as the lack of trees in the parking area, the over-abundance of parking, and some refinements to the buildings. Commr. Root noted that he understands the applicant’s cost issues, but felt it is important for the ARC to express their vision. Commr. Lopes agreed and felt that this was their opportunity to address the appearance of this large shopping center. He felt that instead of this being viewed as final approval, it should be a conceptual review of what the ARC would prefer, and the applicant should consider this direction and return to the ARC. Planner Ricci noted the Commission might want to suggest that the applicant discuss the possibility of phasing. Mr. Montgomery indicated that it had been difficult to involve these tenants earlier in redevelopment plans, and that he was pleased to bring the proposed remodels forward in an effort to have these spaces appear more in keeping with the evolving center. Commr. Lopes indicated that he overall appreciated the applicant’s efforts, but felt that some things may not need to change. He recommended that they keep Mervyn’s facade more intact to add more variety to the shopping center. He suggested that Mervyns retain the arches and stonework, but needed a more defined entry. He wanted to see a visual analysis on how the project will appear from the freeway, including the backs of the parapets. He suggested that a tree be added in front of Sears with a landscaping strip along the driveway. Because the parking lot is so large, he felt that a landscape planter could installed in front of the sidewalk where the drive aisle is located. He suggested that the rooftop lighting on the backs of Mervyn’s and Sears be removed and replaced with contemporary shielded lights. Commr. Root commented that he liked the general design, including the Mervyn’s entry. He suggested that there be an arched opening in the parapet at the back corner of the Sears building. He noted that he liked the shadow play of the Ralphs trellises, and suggested that the building colors be rich rather than subdued. He recommended that they use slightly different shades of the same color on each of the different material ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 5 surfaces. He suggested that there be more landscaping in the front and rear of project buildings. Vice-Chair Schultz commented that he agrees that landscaping is needed in the back. He noted that the sea of asphalt bothers him and that he would like to see more landscaping in front of Mervyn’s. Commr. Boudreau felt the applicant has done a nice job and liked the simplicity and proportions of the Mervyns building. He felt that more articulation of building surfaces was needed. He thought that the central beam of Mervyn’s was acceptable if it were extended out further to meet the side columns. He suggested lowering the height of the side cornice elements on the Sears building. He was looking for a creative scheme for the landscaping, and asked that care be given to the trees that are presently there. Chairperson Stevenson suggested changing some of the roof elements on the Sears building to soften it. He commented that the Mervyn’s building looks dated, and suggested an arched element, like what is proposed on the Sears building, with a gabled entry. He expressed his disapproval of the colors that are proposed. He recommended that the landscaping be completed so the whole parking lot is consistent. He suggested adding more detail to the top of the roof. Commr. Lopes expressed a discomfort on how the project looks from the freeway. He made a motion to continue the item, but was unable to obtain a second. Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval to the project, based on the findings, and subject to the conditions, in the staff report, with the following changes. Condition 2 changing (a) to refine horizontal beam, which extends out at the main surface above the entry to coordinate with columns below or consider awnings at the store entry, (b) add decorative medallions or tile work that compliments the rhythm of the columns, (c) assure the trellises will be constructed and planter/irrigation space provided so the vines could trail up the columns; Condition 4. change to Sears; (b) reduce mass of wall surfaces at entry elements on either side of main entrance, (c) provide decorative tile/medallion details at the three arches and main entry. Condition 6. Show four to six new planter islands or a cluster/park area of the same area, which is a single grouping of trees. Add Condition 7. Finish the back sides of facades with cornice details and color where visible from Highway 101. Seconded by Vice-Chair Schultz. Chairperson Stevenson requested an amendment for the Sears project to soften the roof elements with an arch and hip elements. The motion maker and second accepted the amendment. Commr. Boudreau as the motion maker amended the motion to recommend adding to condition 4 (b) to consider changes to the roof form on the Sears roof. Chairperson Stevenson suggested adding the idea of liner shops in the space in front of Sears between the towers to condition 4. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 6 The motion maker and second accepted the amendment. Commr. Boudreau as the motion maker amended the motion to recommend adding a condition to consider the addition of a liner shop, small retail outlets at the exterior of the Sears façade to help break the scale and add interest to the project. Mr. Montgomery suggested that the ARC could add the language, but he did not feel that they would build liner shops. Commr. Lopes commented that it is not so much a use issue, but a way to break up the long facade with other facades. He requested an amendment to the motion to add “to investigate changing the vertical and horizontal plane, changing wall surface materials so the result might be closer to just a few decorations.” Commr. Boudreau expressed that he did not support the amendment because he did not want to change the building; he just wanted to dress up the body of the building with articulation and additional materials between the arches. Commr. Boudreau felt that the river rock should look natural instead of painted (Condition 5), and felt if it not visible from 101, no money should be spent on this. Commr. Lopes suggested an amendment to the motion to replace the roof top lights. The motion maker and the second accepted the amendment. Commr. Boudreau as the motion maker amended the motion to recommend that the glare be addressed at the rear lighting from Highway 101. Chairperson Stevenson did not like the planter area because parking spaces are lost where a tree well would still accommodate parking. Planner Ricci noted there is more than adequate parking. There was much discussion on the planter area versus parking spaces. The motion maker and the second agreed to leave the motion about the planter area as stated. Chairperson Stevenson stated he did not like the colors proposed for the Mervyns building. Commr. Boudreau replied that he is fine with the colors. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Schultz, and Root NOES: Commr. Lopes and Stevenson. ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 7 The motion carried 3-2. Note: Item 5 on the agenda was taken next (changed to item 3). 3. 487 Marsh Street. ARC 164-01; Conceptual review of the expansion of a residential care facility; C-R zone; Horizon Senior Housing, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report and described the conceptual nature of the . Nigel Gomersall, Project Architect, explained that the applicant wants to create an addition to this facility. He felt there is a need for additional units and a need to create a connection between that existing facility and the new project. He described what style of building the applicant proposes. Chris Skiff, 487 and 497 Marsh Street, stated they have won awards with the design on the previous building, which the ARC approved. He felt the use is a real service to the community and noted there is a great need for housing in this community. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the project has a residential feel to it. He asked if they were planning to move the Pinho building forward? Mr. Gomersall replied yes, and explained they are planning on bringing it 7 feet forward from its present location. Chairperson Stevenson noted there is a patio between the units and the back of the Pinho building and asked for a description of the function on this patio and who would have access to it. Mr. Gomersall explained the possibility of this being residential units, and would be brought in as part of the facility. Mr. Skiff reiterated that it is the primary access to the Pinho residence. Chairperson Stevenson noted there is reference to the large Ficus tree on the street that provides much buffering to the project. He asked if it were not there, would this affect the design? Mr. Gomersall responded that he thought it would not. Chairperson Stevenson questioned what the capability would be for moving the existing building. Mr. Skiff responded that the building was raised from its foundation and a new foundation was added underneath it in 1979. Commr. Lopes questioned if they had considered adding apartments for the staff at the facility. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Skiff replied that it has been a consideration because of the cost of housing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Miles English, 463-1/2, Pacific Street, commented on the size of this building, and the issue of under parking for the employees. Diane Sherfume, 1241 Beech Street, expressed concerns about the large wall at the back of the building that would block the views. She felt there is not enough buffer to plant trees to soften it. She also expressed a concern about the parking problem. Barbara Pillars, 433 Beech Street, commented that she would be unable to see San Luis Mountain from her window, and suggested that the proposed building be one story shorter. Steve Flurry, 460 Pacific Street, expressed a concern about the size of the building, which he felt is out of proportion for the neighborhood. He noted he had been assured, at the previous ARC meeting, that 10 or 11 parking spaces would be enough and would have very minimal impact on their street. He stated they do not allow their employees to park in the parking lot. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson questioned the applicant on what their staff needs currently are, and how would they be increased to accommodate the additional units. Mr. Skiff explained there are currently between 10 and 11 employees in the daytime. Their staff of caregivers, servers, and kitchen staff will increase with the additional units, by approximately four to six additional employees. Chairperson Stevenson asked how many of the current staff reside in town. Mr. Skiff thought about half of them. Chairperson Stevenson asked if any of these employees walk or ride a bike to work. Mr. Skiff explained that he purchased five bikes for his staff to encourage alternate transportation. There are two staff members that currently ride their bikes or walk to work. Chairperson Stevenson asked if any of the other staff engage in ridesharing. Mr. Skiff replied they do not have a ridesharing program at this point in time with this small number of staff. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 9 Chairperson Stevenson asked if there is an established policy that staff is not allowed to park on-site. Mr. Skiff explained that he has asked three or four caregivers and kitchen servers to park on the rear street. He commented that most of the businesses on Marsh Street do not have enough parking so he has his employees park on the back streets. Chairperson Stevenson noted they are trying to provide parking on-site for guests of residents, which is the main reason they are trying to free up some spaces. Commr. Lopes noted there were a couple of units on the top of the building that intrude on the character that is trying to be established. He commented that he would like the Pinho residence remain where it is and asked how many units would be lost if it remained in its present location. Planner Codron responded that the ARC should not to focus on the number of units, but should base their decision on the proposed building architecture. Commr. Lopes commented the atrium is pushing the building back towards the parking lot and the street. He suggested that the atrium be smaller. He proposed that the applicant keep the Pinho residence where it is and modify the rear elevation so they are stepping back, similar to what they have achieved in front, and this could be a two-story rear façade, with the upper units moved in. Mr. Gomersall replied it is already stepped back. Chairperson asked what the actual visual height of the building is. Mr. Gomersall replied approximately 34 feet. He noted in certain areas it is about 8 feet below grade. Vice-Chair Schultz questioned Commr. Lopes why he does not want to move the house forward. Commr. Lopes noted the existing yard is part of the context to the residence. Chairperson Stevenson suggested a linear type of tree between the Pinho house and the building, assuming the Pinho house is moving forward, which would provide some landscaping against the building. He commented that the architect has done an excellent job in providing architectural features and remedies to step the building back, which he felt works on every elevation. He stated that he conceptually supports four stories. Commr. Lopes concurred that he supports four stories. He commented that he prefers the rear facade be a continuous shed roof approach rather than a gable. Commr. Root expressed that designing the project has been a sensitive task and agreed with the concerns of the neighbors. He felt there is an impact on the ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 10 neighborhood with the parking situation. He stated that he supports the four-story building. Commr. Boudreau agreed with the commissioners and supports the four stories. He mentioned this is one of the most successful four-story designs that he has seen in awhile, and liked the way it relates to the original residence. He felt a better solution would be to move the residence. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he would like the applicants to explore the use of more chimneys, but a little smaller in size. He asked if they were going to restore the Pinho residence to its original appearance. Mr. Skiff explained that part of the conceptual plan approved by the CHC is to restore the house back to its original style. Commr. Lopes noted the third floor window is a really large overlook on the neighbors yard and suggested reducing the size. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they step the gable back and put a shed on it. Mr. Gomersall explained the gable was for maintaining a consistency in the features on the elevation. Commr. Lopes asked if they were discouraging people from going out on the sidewalk and around the building and using the rear entry behind the Pinho residence. Mr. Skiff replied they encourage people to walk around the outside, but they want the single point of access for security reasons to be the front door Manse where it occurs presently. Commr. Lopes asked if there is a place for a bench. Mr. Skiff replied yes. There were no motions made from the commission. 4. 3271 South Higuera Street. ARC MOD 190-00; Review of a modification to an approved plan for a new furniture retail store; C-S-S zone; Michael Young and Brian Burnell, applicants. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project modification, based on findings and subject to conditions. Steve Rarig, Rarig Construction, agreed with the conditions of approval, and agreed to increase the landscaping required by the ARC. Commr. Lopes asked where the horizontal band would be in relation to the horizontal band on the Sherman Williams paint building. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Rarig replied that he did not know. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the colors would remain the same. Mr. Rarig replied yes. Commr. Boudreau noted that it is a mirror of the original design. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mark Anderson, 1065 Higuera Street, said he owns property south of the Sherman Williams building. He would like to see the building set back to allow some view corridors. He felt that parking in the back of retail buildings does not work. Mr. Rarig noted that one of the conditions of the ARC was to consider moving the building closer to the street, which is what they did. Now everyone wants them to move it back. Commr. Root asked if there is only one entrance to the back. Mr. Burnel replied no, and explained they could have entrances in the back. Commr. Lopes asked if Sherman Williams has a monument sign. Mr. Anderson replied yes, at the entrance to their parking lot. Commr. Lopes asked if the applicant had a wall sign. Mr. Anderson replied yes, it is centered on the front of building. Chairperson Stevenson noted they do not need a 24-foot driveway. Planner Codron responded they could get by with a 16-foot driveway. Chairperson Stevenson commented that they are picking up some landscaping on the north side and could go to a 16-foot driveway. Planner Codron reiterated that 16 feet is the minimum driveway width. Vice-Chair Schultz commented that his preference would be to keep it on the other side and have a longer linear view of the building. Mr. Rarig mentioned that Brezden is not a typical retail-commercial user. This type of tenant needs the parking in front. Chairperson Stevenson stated he could not support moving the building back. Commr. Lopes suggested they eliminate the firewall. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Rarig felt the ARC is trying to use architecture to solve the problem of bad planning. Chairperson Stevenson responded that they are trying to solve bad planning by suggesting that the building be moved forward. Commr. Lopes stated if they were to address this as an issue to continue a view corridor to the applicant’s building, they might want to have a notch in the building. There was much discussion on the visibility of the building. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes moved that final approval be granted for the modification based on the findings and conditions in the staff report, with an additional condition 7 to read: The architecture shall be revised to provide a notch in the southwest corner of the building that aligns the facade adjacent to the adjoining building for a distance of at least 18 feet, and to provide for landscaped area within that. Seconded by Commr. Root. Chairperson Stevenson suggested an amendment that they add the square footage that would be lost to the north end of the building. Mr. Burnel expressed dissatisfaction with the motion because he felt he would be loosing space by cutting that section out and adding it over to the other area. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the driveway could be less than 25 feet and by picking up a few feet on the north end of the building, the loss over the notch could be made up. Commr. Boudreau commented that they are penalizing the applicant for this supposed view shed when the applicant, in theory, is technically in the entire view shed of Brezden. He stated he could not support the motion. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Root, and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Boudreau and Schultz ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 3-2. 5. 728 Marsh Street. ARC 38-02; Review of a new awning; C-C zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending the request to return to a previously approved awning color, based on findings. Commr. Boudreau asked if there were other signs depicted on part of the application. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 13 Planner Codron explained that those signs were approved with the original permit that allowed the silver awning. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if the awning could be changed. Planner Codron replied the frame could not be changed. John Walker, 1983 Wild Horse Lane, Paso Robles, noted if the awning was to be removed and redone it would be a cost issue which would be expensive and would also leave exposed pipes and an alarm box. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval based on the findings and conditions as recommended by the staff. Seconded by Vice-Chair Schultz. Commr. Lopes asked what the color of the building is. Pam Riggio, Representative, replied gray. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Schultz, Root, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Lopes ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-1. 6. 940 Ambrosia Lane. ARC MOD 76-02; Review of a modification to an approved perimeter wall, and request for height exception to allow a 10-foot high wall where an 8-foot high wall is allowed; R-1-SP zone; Paul Grierson, applicant. This item was continued to a date uncertain, to allow the project developer time to bring this wall into compliance with said approvals prior to the review of this modification request due to possible changes to the existing wall height and/or design. 7. 222 Elks Lane. ARC 52-02; Revew of a wireless telecommunications facility; C-S- S zone; Sprint PCS, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project, based on findings, conditions and code requirements. Commr. Boudreau asked if a single pole carrier is being proposed. Planner Codron replied yes. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 14 David Thornbird, Crown Castle, 510 Castillo Street, Santa Barbara, presented information on why they cannot guarantee two carriers with a 20-inch diameter pole. Vice-Chair Schultz asked what is the necessary height of the pole? Mr. Thornbird, explained the higher it is the better it is, and typically the 20 inches is to scale it out, and the 55 feet could beat their minimum coverage levels. Chairperson Stevenson expressed appreciation on the examples of the Faux Palm and noted they could go 60 feet, which would allow their carrier to have more than two, and could be well concealed. Mr. Thornbird explained input from the Planning Commission did not direct them to look at Faux Trees, so they did not go that direction. He felt a flagpole would be more appropriate at this location. Commr. Lopes asked if the skin of a palm tree would allow you to put the antennas inside the trunk of the tree. Mr. Thornbird mentioned that the fronds could contain antennas. Chairperson Stevenson noted an opportunity that would be more appropriate in the setting and would enable more carriers, and felt if they are going down to a 55-foot flagpole, it is still 20 feet higher than any flagpole that is allowed in the City, and only one carrier is guaranteed. Mr. Thornbird asked how they could get more carriers, and felt the flagpole is a better design at this location and solves the problem. Vice-Chair Schultz asked if it is by the entrance to the building. Mr. Thornbird replied no, it is in the far back of the building. Chairperson Stevenson noted there is a site plan that showed it adjacent to the palm tree. Mr. Thornbird replied yes, but it is behind the building. Vice-Chair Schultz said he likes the flagpole because it does not look like an antenna. Mr. Thornbird mentioned that it would probably carry two carriers, but stated he could not guarantee this. Commr. Lopes asked if they had a color preference and suggested something other than white. Mr. Thornbird replied it would be darker than the white, but not a metallic. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dick McPherson, CEO of the Elks, expressed support for this project because 80% of what they make on the lease would go to charity in the City. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Thornbird mentioned the existing palm tree is 35 feet and another one would be 25 feet taller and with those arrays they would stick out more obtrusively. Commr. Lopes noted there are ways to provide a night-light. Mr. Thornbird mentioned that the lighting issue was presented to the Elks and they felt it could be lit with a low-intensity, very directed beam that would be appropriate, and noted that 50% of flagpoles are lit. Commr. Lopes moved to grant final approval based pm findings and subject to conditions as noted in the staff report, with a change to condition 5 that if the flagpole is lit, it should be lit from the top using the lowest practical wattage. and condition 7 shall include that the flagpole color shall be bronze or dark gray. Seconded by Vice-Chair Schultz. Commr. Boudreau suggested that the color be off-white. Commr. Root asked if they go to a smaller diameter and a shorter pole, are they completely ruling out a second carrier? Chairperson Stevenson reiterated that the applicant stated they could accommodate two carriers. Mr. Thornbird mentioned that it depends on where the other sites would be located. Chairperson Stevenson mentioned that he is willing to support a 12-inch flagpole. Mr. Thornbird asked the Commission not to rule out the replacement of this flagpole if a second carrier did come along and would need the additional height or space. AYES: Commr. Lopes, Schultz, Root, Boudreau, and Stevenson NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Howard. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-0. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 16 8. 1604 Monterey Street. ARC MOD 156-98; Review of a modification to approved tile and window details on a new motel (Lamplighter Inn); C-T zone; Ramesh Patel, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending two of the requested modifications, based on findings and conditions. All other modification requests should be denied and built to the original ARC-approved plan. Vice-Chair Schultz asked how many windows had to be changed. Planner Codron replied he was unsure of the total number. Ramesh Patel, applicant, replied 38. Commr. Lopes asked if the handicap ramp on Palm Street is going to be a darker red brick. Mr. Patel replied yes. Commr. Lopes asked if the applicant had considered a stucco that was a darker color than the building. Mr. Patel replied that it had been discussed. Ramesh Patel, Project Contractor, presented a brief history of the project, and described by item what would be done on the project. Commr. Lopes asked if the frames were off-white. Mr. Patel replied they are white. Lopes questioned if the white frames were part of the original improvement. Mr. Patel explained there was no requirement as to what color the frames were going to be. He discussed the color of the brickwork and materials. He noted Item 4 was not on the construction documents, so this is why item 4 was not done. Planner Codron noted the entire wall is not on the building plans. Mr. Patel mentioned the Planning Commission suggested doing a Mosaic feature to replace the window that was on the wall. Planner Codron noted the floor plan they used does not show the window and this is the only place in the room for a bed. Mr. Patel explained why the window is not on the plans. Commr. Lopes asked what they proposed doing in place of the window. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Patel replied that they would like it left alone, because he felt it needed nothing more to bring it out. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he was having difficulty understanding what the applicant was presenting to the ARC. He explained what the ARC looks for before they approve a project and felt they have not incorporated what was shown on the plans. Mr. Patel explained the brickwork was left out because of the cost. Nipo Patel, 1604 Monterey Street, explained the concept they were trying to follow and gave a brief summary of why they decided on stucco a building. Chairperson Stevenson reiterated that the Commission understood all of the reasons for what they did, but expressed a problem that when a project is submitted for final approval and they see the omission of details, it makes the approval process more difficult. It is these little details that gives the project the right finishing touch. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Planner Codron presented a letter from a concerned citizen which expressed concern that the modifications would increase the problems with their security lights. They presently have an inadequately shielded light at their Palm Street structure behind the Monterey building that intrudes on her home at 1612 Mill Street. Mr. Patel explained he had spoke with the woman several times and had his electrician come and put a shield on this light. He stated the only thing he could possibly do is have no light, but it would be impossible since the parking lot has to be lit for the guests. There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-chair Schultz suggested there be some kind of tile band. He noted he was unsure about the window, but felt there should be a tile mosaic on the blank wall. He requested comments on the proposed 38 windows. Commr. Root suggested there be a tile accent on the tower, but felt a band is too much. Mr. Patel explained where the insets are located. Commr. Root suggested the insets be framed, and stated that he likes the look of the transient windowpanes. He suggested that the walkway facing Palm Street be stamped with something darker and did not feel the other stucco color is dark enough. He felt tile accents should be added to match what is on the rest of the project. He stated he would support some type of tile accent on the face. Commr. Lopes concurred with the other Commissioners’ suggestions. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 18 Chairperson Stevenson suggested no grid, to leave them the way they are. He expressed support on the tile tower and suggested more tile accent. Commr. Lopes noted that the bands could get too tall. Chairperson Stevenson mentioned that he does not support the faux window. Commr. Root moved to grant final approval to the project modifications based on findings and conditions as recommended by staff with the following changes: Condition 3 is deleted, Condition 5 changed to include a band of tile around the top of the tower that would extend from the top edge of the wall to the top edge of the insets on that wall, Condition 1 the brick treatment on the walkway to be amended to read “faced with the darker stucco color with tile accents, Condition 5 would be approximately 24 inches in the context of the stucco color that is fronted by a cruciform iron detail that extends two inches from the face of the building and the tile risers be applied on the Palm and Monterey Street fronts, and the tile is to match the tower. Seconded by Vice-Chair Schultz. Commr. Boudreau asked if the tile would be glazed. Chairperson Stevenson explained the idea was to make the tile really stand out. There was much discussion on tile and it was left to the discretion of the staff. AYES: Commrs. Root, Schultz, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. 9. Commission: A. Agenda Forecast July 15, 2002: Shell gas stations, Depot Railroad Square proposal to take out all the diagonal wood siding. August 5, 2002: Full agenda. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he wanted to commend staff for the inclusion of graphics in the text. Commr. Root asked what kind of mechanism is in place to get from what was presented to the ARC on the schematics and what they get approved construction wise. Commr. Root commented that they are not asking enough on gas station designs. ARC Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 19 Chairperson Stevenson suggested they take pictures of different areas so they could put a library of these images together, which would make it easier to show an example of what the ARC would like to see. There was discussion on service station projects. Planner Codron explained how the storm drainage interceptors are maintained. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary