Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commissioners Rob Schultz, Allen Root, and Zeljka Howard. Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Consultant Paul Crawford, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE: The Minutes of April 1, 2002 were accepted as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 221 Madonna Road. ARC 91-02; Review of new site signage for Madonna Plaza; C-R zone; R.R.M. Design Group, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending approval of site signage for the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center, based on findings, and subject to conditions and one code requirement. Victor Montgomery, applicant’s representative, presented information about why a pylon sign was needed for their regional-serving shopping center. He offered some examples of other pylon signs that had been installed in nearby communities. He noted that compared to other pylon signs, the proposed freeway-oriented pylon sign was small. He presented some alternative design solutions to the submitted pylon sign. Chairperson Stevenson commented that the Commission is concerned about signage on the backs of the buildings. Steven Rigor, applicant’s representative, explained that other existing tenants have signage on the back of their buildings, and noted the lettering under the new standards would be smaller. Planner Ricci explained that there had been a freeway sign in place for the Central Coast Mall and that as part of the review of the Promenade project, the new freeway sign was allowed as a replacement to what had been there previously. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Glen Martin, Rossetti Company, commented that the freeway pylon sign serves a different purpose than the signs on the back of the buildings. He noted that he is in favor of having a more uniform treatment for the rear wall signs. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau commented that he is comfortable with all the signs shown, with the exception of the freeway sign, and suggested they make the freeway sign a little more interesting. He liked the monument and tower signs as they coordinated with the architecture of the center. Commr. Lopes noted that he was not in favor of the pylon sign. He wanted to see a limit to the number of faces on the proposed monument signs. He suggested a different approach to the freeway sign utilizing a metal structure with squared tenant faces. Commr. Smith suggested there should be fewer, but more functional signs with less information on them. He stated his support for the monument signs. Chairperson Stevenson noted the need to identify the regional center and supported the concept of a pylon sign. He liked the Craftsman style alternative pylon design presented by the applicant. He agreed that there should be uniformity to the signs on the rear of buildings. Commr. Boudreau asked if all the new signs are in compliance with the Sign Regulations. Planner Ricci responded they are, except for the freeway sign. There was discussion on the number of signs that should be allowed at a center. Planner Ricci presented a review of what the approved sign program allows for secondary signage. Laurie Valeri, Jones Signs Nationwide, Wisconsin, explained the difference between the signs on the building and pylon signs. Planner Ricci reiterated what was approved with the building signage program. Commr. Smith asked if they were going to look at one sign at a time. Planner Ricci explained that the approved sign program does not require Mervyns, Ralphs, and Sears to modify their signage to conform until they seek new signage because they are legally non-conforming. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 3 Commr. Lopes presented a motion, but having no second it failed. Commr. Boudreau moved to approve the monument signs and shopping center identification sign on the tower per staff’s recommendation, and continue review of the freeway pylon sign to explore quality alternatives. Direction was given that those majors that have complying signage would be allowed tenant faces on a possible pylon sign. Seconded by Commr. Lopes. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. 2. 243 Madonna Road. ARC 104-02; Review of a signage proposal for Borders Books in exception to the approved shopping center sign program; C-R zone; Borders Group, Inc., applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant exceptions to the Madonna Plaza Master Building Sign Program to allow taller and larger wall signs than normally would be allowed, and a permanent window sign, based on recommended findings and conditions. Laurie Valeri, of Jones Signs Nationwide in Greenbay, Wisconsin, noted that Borders as a retailer is committed to the community and the local arts. She commented that allowing taller signs is consistent with Border’s being a major anchor tenant and a regional store. Commr. Smith asked if the sign program for the shopping center prohibits rear signs on new buildings. Planner Ricci replied no, and explained how the program distinguished between major tenants and shop buildings. Ms. Valeri commented that Border’s needs the rear elevation sign so people can find their location from the highway. Steven Rigor, noted that the smaller shop spaces were not allowed rear signs with the sign program because of their typically higher turnover. He believed that Border’s would be in this location for a long time and should have a rear sign like other major tenants. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Glen Martin, Rosetti Company, commented that the theater that was previously there had a rear sign and the five major tenants that were surviving this remodel would be allowed to have rear signs. He noted that Border’s would be the sixth sign. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau asked if the proposed total square footage of signage for this tenant, including the rear sign, would be in compliance with the allowed area limitations. Planner Ricci replied that the two wall signs would be less than the 131 square feet of signage allowed for this building, but that the rear sign would be in excess of what was allowed. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern that the signage proposed on the front of the building compromised the building architecture and the pedestrian feel of the center that they were hoping to achieve. He suggested that they leave the sign where it was originally proposed. Commr. Lopes recommended that they break up the proposed main wall signs into separate components. He mentioned a concern with the exceptions to the sign program proposed. Planner Ricci noted that staff has approved the changes to the building to accommodate this as a single tenant space. Commr. Boudreau felt that the building changes were not that significant and were appropriate to making the separate spaces into a single store. Commr. Smith responded that he was opposed to any rear wall signs and that a pylon sign should provide businesses with desired highway visibility. Chairperson Stevenson commented he could support the signage in the proposed upper locations if they were in compliance with the sign program standards for overall height. Ms. Valeri commented they have changed the typical Border’s identification sign by not illuminating the tag line because the sign is so small. Commr. Lopes commented he would like to see the Border’s sign not exceed 30-inches in height and the Borders advertisement of books, movies and café be somewhere other than underneath this sign. He suggested signs be encouraged at the pedestrian entries. He also noted that he did not support valance signs. Commr. Boudreau moved to approve the sign proposal, with the exceptions specified by staff, and to approve the 24-inch maximum height for the rear sign based on the floor area exceeding 15,000 square feet and therefore being considered a major tenant. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. Chairperson Stevenson expressed disappointment with the changes in the architecture. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 5 Planner Ricci reiterated the amendments to the findings would be to acknowledge it as a major tenant and enhance the findings that are already stated. Commr. Lopes commented he would support the motion if the rear sign were not included. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Lopes and Smith ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard and Root ABSTIAN: None. The vote was a split decision. Commr. Boudreau moved to support staff’s recommendations and continue consideration of the rear sign to a later date. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. Planner Ricci suggested they take out the reference to major tenant and talk about location and consolidation as enhancements to the findings. Commr. Boudreau suggested that staff bring information on whether Highway 101 is considered a frontage in terms of allowing the rear signs. The motion maker and second concurred with these suggestions. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Stevenson, Smith, and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 4-0. 3. 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARC 56-02; Review of façade changes to the Railroad Square building; C-R-S-H zone; Depot Square, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee. George Garcia, Garcia Architect and Design, 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue, explained the revisions to the design in response to direction from the ARC, and provided background on the materials and detailing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peter Sterios, SLO, spoke in support of the project, noting that the changes will be made to benefit those in the building. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 6 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau supported the design and how it frames the central masonry building. He felt that the northern annex was not as significant architecturally, but has a consistent theme. He liked the simple and elegant design, especially on the southern addition. Commr. Lopes commented that the character does not emanate from the railroad guidelines. He wanted more of a rationale for why the ARC’s suggestions were not workable. Commr. Smith supported the project, and liked the proposed colors and materials. Chairperson Stevenson felt that the previous direction by the ARC had not been addressed, and that there was too much of a gap in terms of style and context. He suggested more work be done, particularly on the south annex. Planner Ricci asked if the primary concerns were with the window forms. Chairperson Stevenson replied the concerns are with the window forms, fascia, and the hard edge at the window top, which is a very modern form. Commr. Lopes moved that the project be continued to a date uncertain, and for the applicant to (1) provide a cornice or fascia at the top of the parapet walls or a gutter detail, (2) use moldings around the windows and doors where appropriate for historic authenticity, and use moldings for historic analogy, and revise the window design on both the north and south additions to include divided lights to be consistent with the Railroad District guidelines. Replace the mitered windows at the corners with windows divided by a corner building element, (3) address the screening or resurfacing of the metal cabinets used as equipment shelters at the south end of the building facing the street. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. Chairperson Stevenson questioned how any of this resembles the railroad guidelines, and noted they are not suggesting that it be ornate. Commr. Boudreau felt anything that is added to it diminishes the quality of the design. There was discussion on how to achieve the historical character of the railroad guidelines. AYES: Commrs. Lopes and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Smith and Boudreau ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The vote was a split decision. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 7 Commr. Boudreau moved to bring this solution and another design alternative to address the concerns raised by the ARC and the consistency with the Railroad Design Guidelines. Seconded by Commr. Lopes. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 4-0. The Item will be continued to September 16, 2002. 4. 2074 Monterey Street. ARC 93-02; Review of telecommunications antennas on the roof of an existing building (La Cuesta Motor Inn); C-T zone; Sprint PCS, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval of the project, based on findings, and subject to recommended conditions. Tom Reay, Omni Design Architect, presented photos of the proposed antennas, and gave a brief explanation of them. Chairperson Stevenson noted he prefers a sheet metal type rain cap for the chimneys. Mr. Ray explained the equipment would be in the center of the roof area. David Thornburgh, Crown Castle International, was concerned with Condition 4 regarding the screening of the equipment since it would not be visible. Planner Ricci reiterated that it would be painted to match. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they have a provision that if it is visible, then it will be screened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval, based on the findings and conditions as outlined in the report, with an amendment to condition 4 that states: “If the equipment area is visible to adjacent properties, it shall be screened, Add condition 5 to provide authentic chimney cap detail for staff review. Seconded by Commr. Smith. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 8 AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Smith, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. 5. 105 Mustang Drive #101. ARC 80-02; Review of a proposed clear-span foot bridge over Stenner Creek with a creek setback exception, and environmental review, R-4 zone; First Worthing, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending approval of the bridge design, with setback exceptions, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, agreed with the conditions and explained how the bridge would be constructed. Commr. Lopes commented there is a tree that blocks the light to the bridge and suggested it be taken out and replaced with a lower tree to allow for more light. He questioned if they have discussed more lighting around the bridge. Ms. Florence responded they had discussions with the Natural Resource Manager to make a safe pedestrian access, but noted there was a concern about the lights creating a glare. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street, asked if this is a path that cyclists will use. Ms. Florence replied yes. Jeff Lambert, Stenner Glen, spoke in support of this bridge project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Smith supported the project. Commr. Lopes expressed the need for improving the lighting situation through the site across the bridge over to the corner of the property and the northwest parking lot. Commr. Boudreau moved to approve the request as presented in the staff report and amend condition 1 to add: In addition, the applicant shall review the parking lot and other exterior lighting along the pedestrian route to upgrade lighting for additional safety to the approval of staff. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 9 AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Stevenson, Smith, and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. 6. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of the comprehensive update of the City’s Design Guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending continuation to a date uncertain, with specific direction on suggested revisions to the text and recommended additions to graphics and illustrations. There was discussion on how the changes were going to be addressed. Paul Crawford, City Consultant, mentioned that he had edited the first two chapters to eliminate redundant content. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street, stated she would like to see references to bicycles and pedestrians as transportation modes added throughout the document. She mentioned concerns with ties and other alternative paving surfaces in terms of accessibility. She suggested that there be alternative design solutions to bicycle racks beyond the basic “hoop”. Josephine Malone expressed appreciation for rewording the introduction to the sign section, but she continued to have issues with not being able to better regulate storefront window displays. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes commented on what constitutes a sign versus a window display. He mentioned that it would be a good idea to obtain more information on how window displays can be regulated and the relationship to case law. Chairperson Stevenson suggested a recommendation asking for a written opinion on this issue. Commr. Lopes moved that the ARC be provided with an opinion about the legality of regulating sexual content in signs and window displays and to what degree the community values can be compromised. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 10 AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Stevenson, Smith, and Boudreau NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. GRAPHIC DISCUSSION: Commr. Boudreau commented that the graphic on page 55 appears dark and that a better version be used for reproduction. The commission provided some suggested changes to the graphics proposed in the guidelines. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that when the City Council adopts the guidelines, a provision should be made that states further graphic additions could be added without requiring a formal amendment process where the graphics better clarify the text. Commr. Boudreau felt that photographs should be added where they help to define concepts expressed in the text. Commr. Lopes presented some text changes on various pages. Mr. Crawford commented that the goals for landscaping were not as useful as the specific design guidelines were. Planner Ricci asked if the Commission is comfortable with not seeing further changes before the guidelines are sent to the City Council. Chairperson Stevenson replied yes. Mr. Crawford commented on the ARC’s role with respect to the environmental review of projects. He remarked that it was his recommendation that the ARC continue to act on environmental documents. Chairperson Stevenson concurred that the ARC retains the ability to make the environmental determination on projects. Commr. Lopes moved that the ARC recommend approval of the Draft Community Design Guidelines to the City Council, with changes discussed at the meeting and others highlighted in the staff report, and recommend that the guidelines be adopted with an allowance for additional graphics and photographs to be added without formal amendment to the guidelines. Seconded by Commr. Smith. ARC Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 11 AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Smith, Boudreau, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. Commr. Lopes moved they recommend the ARC be the sole decision-making body for CEQA on projects under its review. Seconded by Commr. Smith. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Smith, Boudreau, and n Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, and Root ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 7. Staff Pam Ricci provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 3, 2002, in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary